Appendix F (Deschutes River Tmdls)

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

Appendix F

Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Technical Approach Overview ...... 1 2.0 WATER TEMPERATURE ...... 2 2.1 Technical Approach ...... 2 2.1.1 Geospatial and Monitoring Data ...... 3 2.2 Technical Analysis ...... 6 2.2.1 TTools Application ...... 6 2.2.2 Shade Modeling: Existing Conditions ...... 8 2.2.3 Shade Modeling: System Potential Vegetation ...... 9 2.3 TMDLs: Thermal Heat ...... 15 3.0 NUTRIENTS ...... 16 3.1 Relationship between Nutrients, DO, and pH ...... 16 3.1.1 Influencing Factors for DO ...... 16 3.1.2 Influencing Factors for pH ...... 16 3.1.3 Nutrients as a Surrogate for DO and pH ...... 17 3.2 Technical Approach ...... 17 3.3 Monitoring Data ...... 18 3.4 Technical Analysis ...... 19 3.5 TMDLs: Nutrients ...... 21 4.0 SOURCE ASSESSMENT ...... 23 4.1 Summary of Permit Types...... 25 4.2 Temperature ...... 25 4.3 Nutrients ...... 26 4.4 Source Assessment Summary ...... 32 4.5 Wasteload Allocations ...... 34 5.0 REFERENCES ...... 35 6.0 APPENDIX F-1: TABULAR SHADE DEFICIT AND THERMAL TMDL RESULTS ...... 37

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Conceptual framework summary for waterbodies impaired for water temperature...... 3 Table 2. Geospatial data sources...... 4 Table 3. Monitoring records for tributaries impaired for water temperature (°C)...... 6 Table 4. Summary of tributary attribute results from TTools...... 8 Table 5. Shade.xls model inputs for existing conditions of riparian land use/cover classes...... 9 Table 6. Longitudinal average daily effective shade deficits and solar heat loads during the critical period...... 11 Table 7. Effective shade targets and daily maximum solar heat TMDLs...... 15 Table 8. Observed DO concentration data for waterbodies impaired for DO (mg/L)...... 18 Table 9. Observed pH (s.u.) for waterbodies impaired for pH...... 18 Table 10. Observed TN for waterbodies impaired for DO and/or pH (mg/L)...... 19 Table 11. Observed TP for waterbodies impaired for DO and/or pH (mg/L)...... 19 Table 12. TN and TP TMDLs for waterbodies impaired for DO and/or pH...... 21 Table 13. NPDES permitted stormwater sources...... 24 Table 14. Existing heat load and effective shade within the MS4 boundaries...... 26 Table 15. Permitted MS4s in catchments of waterbodies impaired for temperature, DO, and/or pH...... 27 Table 16. Runoff approximation summary for Adams Creek (East)...... 29 Table 17. Runoff approximation summary for Ayer Creek...... 29 Table 18. Runoff approximation summary for Black Lake Ditch...... 29 Table 19. Runoff approximation summary for Percival Creek...... 29 Table 20. Approximate existing stormwater TP loads (kg/day) from MS4s...... 30 Table 21. Approximate existing urban stormwater TN loads (kg/day) from MS4s...... 30 Table 22. Approximate existing stormwater TN and TP loads for Black Lake Quarry...... 31 Table 23. Approximate existing stormwater TN and TP loads for industrial facilities...... 31 Table 24. Active NPDES permitted construction stormwater permits...... 32 Table 25. Nitrogen and phosphorus loads (kg/day) for estimated average daily stormwater flow (cfs)...... 33 Table 26. Reductions required from existing loads to meet the WLAs...... 34 Table F-1. Effective shade targets, deficits, and daily maximum solar heat TMDLs for Ayer Creek...... 37 Table F-2. Effective shade targets, deficits, and daily maximum solar heat TMDLs for Huckleberry Creek...... 42 Table F-3. Effective shade targets, deficits, and daily maximum solar heat daily TMDLs for Adams Creek...... 59 Table F-4. Effective shade targets, deficits, and daily maximum solar heat TMDLs for Tempo Lake Outlet...... 65 Table F-5. Effective shade targets, deficits, and daily maximum solar heat TMDLs for Unnamed Spring to Deschutes River...... 66 ii

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

Table F-6. Effective shade targets, deficits, and daily maximum solar heat TMDLs for Reichel Creek...... 67 Table F-7. Effective shade targets, deficits, and daily maximum solar heat TMDLs for Lake Lawrence Creek. .... 73

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Waterbodies on the 2012 303(d) impaired waters list addressed in this report...... 1 Figure 2. NLCD 2011 land use/cover in the Deschutes River watershed with an inset map showing the Adams Creek area north of the watershed...... 5 Figure 3. Average daily shade deficit along Huckleberry Creek...... 11 Figure 4. Average daily shade deficit along Tempo Lake Outlet...... 12 Figure 5. Average daily shade deficit along Unnamed Spring to Deschutes River...... 12 Figure 6. Average daily shade deficit along Lake Lawrence Tributary...... 13 Figure 7. Average daily shade deficit along Reichel Creek...... 13 Figure 8. Average daily shade deficit along Ayer Creek...... 14 Figure 9. Average daily shade deficit along Adams Creek (East)...... 14 Figure 10. Observed TN concentrations for waterbodies impaired for DO and/or pH and the target ambient TN concentration for the Puget Lowlands Ecoregion (Level III)...... 20 Figure 11. Observed TP concentrations for waterbodies impaired for DO and/or pH and the target ambient TP concentration for the Puget Lowlands Ecoregion (Level III)...... 20 Figure 12. Required nitrogen reductions for tributaries impaired for DO and pH (based on maximum observed concentration and target concentration)...... 22 Figure 13. Required phosphorus reductions for tributaries impaired for DO and pH...... 23 Figure 14. MS4 boundaries within catchments for waterbodies impaired for temperature, DO and/or pH...... 27 Figure 15. Percent of tributary catchment attributed to MS4s and non-MS4 areas for waterbodies...... 28

iii

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS

Acronym/Abbreviation Definition °C Degrees Celsius µg/L Micrograms per Liter Clean Water Act Section 303(d): Impaired Waters and Total Maximum Daily 303(d) Loads 7-DADMax 7-Day Average of Daily Maximum Temperature ac-ft/yr Acre-feet per Year BMP Best Management Practice BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand CBOD Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand CFR Code of Federal Regulations cfs Cubic Feet per Second CWA Clean Water Act DEM Digital Elevation Model DMR Discharge Monitoring Report DO Dissolved Oxygen Ecology Washington Department of Ecology EIM Environmental Information Management System EMC Event Mean Concentration EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency GHCND Global Historical Climatology Network Daily GIS Geographic Information System in/yr Inches per Year kg/day Kilograms per Day kWh/day Kilowatt-hours per Day kWh/m2/day Kilowatt-hours per Square Meter per Day LA Load Allocation LiDAR Light Detection And Ranging m Meters mg/L Milligram per Liter mg-N/L Milligrams Nitrogen per Liter mg-P/L Milligrams Phosphorus per Liter MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System NA Not Applicable NHD National Hydrography Dataset NLCD National Land Cover Dataset NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NSDZ Near-Stream Disturbance Zone

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

Acronym/Abbreviation Definition NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Unit ODEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality PARIS Water Quality Permitting and Reporting Information System PLOAD Pollutant Load Application Tool QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan SOD Sediment Oxygen Demand SPV System Potential Vegetation s.u. Standard Units (for pH) TKN Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TN Total Nitrogen TP Total Phosphorus USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USGS United States Geological Survey WAC Washington Administration Code WLA Waste Load Allocation W/m2 Watts per Square Meter WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This appendix is based a report prepared by Tetra Tech under contract with the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10. All work was conducted in accordance with an approved Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP; Tetra Tech, 2019a). This appendix describes technical analyses conducted to support development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) to address nine tributaries impaired by a combination of temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), and pH in the Deschutes River watershed (Figure 1). The Unnamed Spring was incorrectly aggregated with Listing ID 48713 for the 2012 listing cycle. The correct listing ID from the 2010 listing cycle, Listing ID 48923, is specified in the map in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Waterbodies on the 2012 303(d) impaired waters list addressed in this report.

1.1 TECHNICAL APPROACH OVERVIEW

The regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 130.2(i) allow appropriate surrogate measures to be used as the basis of a TMDL. Effective shade and corresponding maximum daily solar heat loads were assigned to the temperature impaired waterbodies as surrogate targets necessary to meet the numeric water temperature criteria. Because limiting light and nutrient availability hinders algal growth, which the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) identified as the driver of pH and DO water quality concerns in the

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

2015 Deschutes TMDLs, EPA established riparian shade, solar heat, and nutrient TMDLs to synergistically mitigate undesirable DO and pH fluctuations and support attainment of water quality criteria. This appendix includes details on the linkage between these targets and pH and/or DO, the approach used to establish the targets, and the analysis supporting the identification of TMDLs and assignment of allocations.

2.0 WATER TEMPERATURE

2.1 TECHNICAL APPROACH

Based on the well-documented relationship between riparian shade and stream temperature (Belt et al., 1992), reduced riparian shade along the stream corridor was identified as the most critical stressor causing temperatures to exceed water quality standards in the tributaries. This was verified for the mainstem using a QUAL2Kw model as part of the 2015 Deschutes TMDLs. The QUAL2Kw modeling results for the Deschutes River temperature TMDLs showed that restoration of mature riparian vegetation provided the highest incremental improvement in reducing water temperatures. Secondary benefits expected to result from restoration of riparian vegetation, including improvements to channel morphology and microclimate conditions, were also evaluated by Ecology with the QUAL2Kw model. These were shown to be the second (channel improvements) and third (microclimate) most influential factors for improving water temperature in the Deschutes River. Restoring historic low flows was shown to be the least influential water quality management strategy. As such, the tributary temperature TMDLs focus on riparian vegetation for the attainment of the applicable temperature criteria. Shade models were developed to quantify effective shade for existing and system potential (i.e. restored mature) riparian vegetation for the tributaries impaired for water temperature. Effective shade is defined as the fraction of the potential solar shortwave radiation blocked by vegetation and topography before it reaches the stream surface. In addition, the shade models estimate the thermal heat load from solar radiation that reaches the exposed stream surface. Effective shade and solar heat loading targets are defined and applied as surrogate measures for these TMDLs. A similar approach has been applied in approved water temperature TMDLs for other Washington streams including the Green River (Coffin et al., 2011) and Salmon Creek (Stohr et al., 2011). Improvements to channel stability and morphology are inherently part of restoring riparian vegetation but are not explicitly part of the shade models. The technical approach consisted of developing a site-specific shade model for each of the tributaries impaired for water temperature, as well as those impaired for DO and/or pH. Natural shade conditions will help achieve attainment of water quality criteria for DO and pH and reduce heat loading to the temperature-impaired Deschutes River. Ecology’s shade modeling tool (Shade.xls) is a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet tool available on Ecology’s website that applies methods originally developed by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) and Chen et al. (1998a; 1998b). The Shade.xls model quantifies solar heat loading and calculates percent effective shade along the stream corridor. Heat loads were developed for the TMDLs using the conceptual framework summarized in Table 1. The Shade.xls model evaluates solar radiation along streams using geographic information system (GIS) data derived with the TTools ArcGIS extension. TTools is an ArcMap Python add-in that uses spatial inputs to sample vegetation and topography data perpendicular to the stream channel at equal intervals longitudinally from upstream to downstream. It also samples longitudinal stream channel characteristics, such as the near-stream disturbance zone (NSDZ) and elevation. TTools can sample spatial data from the digitized edge of the water including ground elevation and land use type in the NSDZ and the riparian zone depending on available remote sensing data. Typically, spatial data inputs include Light Detection And Ranging (LiDAR) outputs, digital elevation models (DEMs), and riparian vegetation digitized from aerial imagery (digital orthophoto quadrangles and rectified aerial photos).

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

Table 1. Conceptual framework summary for waterbodies impaired for water temperature.

Category Description Effective shade and thermal heat loads from solar radiation for existing and system potential riparian vegetation were evaluated through Models/Tools application of the Shade model (Shade.xls with inputs derived from TTools, an ArcGIS extension). The modeling framework applied riparian shade and thermal heat loading Endpoint as surrogate targets and the assessment endpoint. The ultimate endpoint is the numeric 7-DADMax temperature criterion. The key stressors evaluated for the waterbodies impaired for temperature Evaluated Stressors and include incoming shortwave solar radiation and riparian shade loss. The Processes spatial extent and density of existing and potential riparian shade characteristics were evaluated. Key parameters include latitude/longitude, time of year, stream geometry, Key Model Parameters topography, and vegetative buffer characteristics (e.g., species) of the existing and potential mature riparian vegetation.

As previously discussed, effective shade is the fraction of shortwave solar radiation that does not reach the stream surface due to interception by vegetative cover and/or topography. Effective shade at any location or time is influenced by latitude/longitude, time of year, stream geometry, channel orientation, topography, and riparian vegetation characteristics such as height, overhang, and density. Data inputs for the tributary Shade.xls models were readily available (e.g., aerial imagery, DEMs), and additional data (e.g., vegetation height and overhang) were estimated from LiDAR and other relevant data sources. The TTools output served as input for the Shade.xls models, which were then used to generate longitudinal effective shade profiles and daily solar radiation estimations below riparian cover. Heat loads to the streams were calculated in units of watts per square meter (W/m2) and were also converted to units of kilowatt-hours per square meter per day (kWh/m2/day) and kilowatt-hours per day (kWh/day) to establish daily TMDLs for the temperature TMDLs. These units of measure, however, have limited value in guiding management and implementation activities needed to restore water quality. Thus, riparian shade targets that correspond with the solar heat loading targets were also defined to support implementation. The technical approach for applying these surrogate measures for water temperature is reasonable and protective of instream and downstream water quality for the following reasons:

• Applications of Ecology’s Shade.xls model have informed approved TMDLs across the state; • Riparian vegetation provides increased effective stream shade that directly limits the heat load to the water surface, therefore reducing instream water temperatures; • Shade loss was shown to be the most critical stressor in terms of heat loading to the Deschutes River based on QUAL2Kw modeling scenarios.

2.1.1 Geospatial and Monitoring Data

Data used in the technical analyses included GIS spatial datasets for drainage area delineations, land use/cover, permitted urban stormwater boundaries, Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) operated roadways, vegetation and bare earth elevations, and aerial imagery (Table 2). GIS data were used to develop catchment boundaries for the waterbodies and to differentiate between regulated Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s), which are subject to wasteload allocations (WLAs), and unregulated (non-MS4) areas,

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis which are subject to load allocations (LAs). National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) 2011 land use/cover applied in the assessments is shown in Figure 2. Instream water temperature monitoring records were queried for all tributaries listed as impaired for water temperature, except for Percival Creek and Black Lake Ditch, which already have Ecology-developed Shade.xls models and targets. Those query results are summarized in Table 3. Water temperature monitoring records were available from the Washington Environmental Information Management (EIM) online database and from Thurston County. Water temperature observations were available for Ayer Creek at a frequency of about twice per month from July to December 2004. Water temperature was typically evaluated daily between 7/24/2003 to 10/23/2003 for Huckleberry Creek (minimum, maximum and average reported in EIM), and about every other week between July and December of 2004. Water temperature was sampled at Reichel Creek daily between 7/1/2003 to 10/22/2003 and 4/29/2004 to 9/28/2004 (minimum, maximum and average reported in EIM) and about once per month in recent years, where the highest individual record is 23.9 ºC. Tempo Lake Outlet was monitored between 5/21/2003 to 9/23/2003 and the Unnamed Spring to Deschutes River was monitored between 7/8/2003 and 6/29/2004. Ecology suspects there are quality issues with the data available through EIM for Unnamed Spring to Deschutes River. Nevertheless, summary metrics are provided for the data available.

Table 2. Geospatial data sources.

Purpose GIS Datasets Development of watershed Catchment boundaries shapefile from NHDPlus V21 boundaries and catchment areas Flow accumulation analysis (Tetra Tech, 2019b) MS4 boundaries shapefile from Ecology Defining MS4 and non-regulated Land use/cover raster and imperviousness from NLCD 2011 areas National highways shapefile from WSDOT Development of Shade model Bare earth elevation (last-return) LiDAR rasters, vegetation elevation inputs (first-return) LiDAR rasters Development of Shade model Streaming aerial imagery (Google Earth, ArcGIS Online World inputs using remote sensing Imagery) information 1http://www.horizon-systems.com/nhdplus/nhdplusv2_home.php

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

Figure 2. NLCD 2011 land use/cover in the Deschutes River watershed with an inset map showing the Adams Creek area north of the watershed.

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

Table 3. Monitoring records for tributaries impaired for water temperature (°C).

Data Period of Waterbody 7-DADMax1 Count2 Mean Min Max Sources Record 7/21/2004 – Ayer Creek EIM 17.5 11 11.8 4.5 18.8 12/28/2004 7/2/2003 – Huckleberry Creek EIM 16.0 288 13.0 4.6 16.3 12/28/2004 EIM and 7/1/2003 – Reichel Creek Thurston 16.0 490 13.4 0.4 20.0 9/10/2018 County 5/21/2003 – Tempo Lake Outlet EIM 17.5 378 15.4 10.7 25.1 9/23/2003 Unnamed Spring to 7/8/2003 – EIM 17.5 420 9.5 8.5 21.03 Deschutes River 6/29/2004 1The water temperature standard is expressed as the 7-day average of daily maximum temperatures (7-DADMax), however, the statistics shown in the table are derived from individual grab samples (e.g., individual maximum observation of water temperature).

2Typically the minimum, maximum, and average daily temperatures are reported in EIM for Huckleberry Creek, Reichel Creek, Tempo Lake Outlet, and Unnamed Spring to Deschutes River. The sample count listed in the table does not aggregate these.

3Ecology suspects there may be quality issues associated with the data for the Unnamed Spring to Deschutes River.

2.2 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

To assess topographic and vegetative shade that blocks solar radiation, Shade.xls models were developed with inputs derived from the TTools ArcGIS Extension. Shade models for Black Lake Ditch and Percival Creek were previously developed by Ecology (Roberts et al., 2012) to support TMDL development for the 2015 Deschutes TMDLs. Because Ecology did not previously develop Shade.xls models for other temperature-impaired tributaries and riparian restoration was identified as necessary to address tributary DO and pH impaired waters as well, Shade.xls models were developed for Huckleberry Creek, Reichel Creek, Tempo Lake Outlet, Ayer Creek, Lake Lawrence Creek, Adams Creek, and the Unnamed Spring to Deschutes River. Lake Lawrence Creek and Adams Creek were not included on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) 2012 list as impaired for water temperature; the solar heat TMDLs for these two creeks are anticipated to aid in improvements to DO and pH, respectively. To capture critical conditions relative to water temperature, the Shade.xls model application was evaluated for the middle of summer when the maximum solar heat load is anticipated to be exerted on the tributaries. The existing Shade.xls models generated by Ecology for Black Lake Ditch and Percival Creek were run for the date of July 24, 2004, and that date was adopted for the new Shade.xls model simulations conducted for the other tributaries.

2.2.1 TTools Application

Inputs for TTools included the following:

• Stream Centerline Shapefile: These were digitized using LiDAR and aerial imagery. • Stream Wetted Width Shapefile: Water edges on both sides of the stream centerline were digitized using LiDAR and aerial imagery. Where channel banks were not easily determined, general assumptions of channel width were applied to the entire reaches based on available data such as portions of the channel visible in imagery (Table 4).

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

• Coarse-Resolution Elevation Raster: 30-meter resolution (32.8-ft) statewide elevation grid was used to calculate long-range topographic shade angles. • Fine-Resolution Elevation Raster: 6-foot resolution bare earth (last-return) LiDAR raster from the Puget Sound LiDAR Consortium was used for sampling ground elevation in the riparian corridor. • Vegetation Shapefile: Vegetation within 40 meters on either side of each tributary wetted width were digitized into distinct land cover polygons using both aerial imagery and vegetation (first-return) 6-foot resolution LiDAR rasters from the Puget Sound LiDAR Consortium. The land use classes identified for the riparian areas included the following: water, pavement, building, grass, sparse forest, medium forest, and dense forest. When TTools was run, the stream centerlines were segmented every 10 meters to allow for fine-resolution simulation because some tributaries are relatively short in length (e.g., Tempo Lake Outlet is 268 meters long). The following 10-meter segment-scale outputs from TTools were applied as input parameters in the Shade.xls model and the values from TTools for each tributary are summarized in Table 4:

• Location of the node as a distance from upstream in meters • Channel elevation in meters • Solar aspect in degrees • Wetted width in meters and Distance from the stream centerline to the wetted width • Near stream disturbance zone width in meters, which was set equal to wetted width • Channel incision in meters; although not a direct output from TTools, it was estimated by subtracting the channel elevation from the near-stream (zone 0) bare earth elevation • Topographic shade angles in degrees from the West, South, and East • Riparian vegetation codes for 9 separate four-meter (approximately 13-foot) zones perpendicular to the stream on both left and right banks • Riparian ground elevation for 9 separate four-meter (approximately 13-foot) zones perpendicular to the stream on both left and right banks

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

Table 4. Summary of tributary attribute results from TTools.

Average Median Average 2012 303(d) Tributary Dominant Channel Wetted Channel Waterbody List for Length Riparian Elevation Width Incision Temperature (m) Vegetation Class (m) (m) (m)

Huckleberry Creek Yes 5,706 298 4.0 0.8 Dense Forest

Reichel Creek Yes 1,936 130 2.0 0.3 Grass

Tempo Lake Outlet Yes 268 73 4.0 0.8 Dense Forest Unnamed Spring to Yes 52 71 2.0 0.1 Medium Forest Deschutes River Ayer Creek Yes 1,532 46 4.0 0.1 Grass

Black Lake Ditch1 Yes 3,633 38 4.0 0.5 Shrub Medium Percival Creek1 Yes 5,452 31 2.3 0.7 Deciduous Lake Lawrence No 1,279 127 3.0 0.6 Grass Tributary Adams Creek (East) No 1,910 30 4.0 0.7 Dense Forest 1TTools outputs for Black Lake Ditch and Percival Creek are summarized based on previously constructed models by Ecology (Roberts et al., 2012) applied in the approved water temperature TMDLs for these waterbodies (EPA, 2018).

2.2.2 Shade Modeling: Existing Conditions

Shade.xls models for existing conditions were developed for the mainstem Deschutes River, as well as Black Lake Ditch and Percival Creek as part of the technical assessment completed by Ecology (Roberts et al., 2012) for the approved TMDLs. Hemispherical digital photography data observed at nine locations on the mainstem and six locations along Percival Creek informed the development of Shade.xls models for the Deschutes River and Percival Creek. Often, however, hemispherical digital photography data are not available for this purpose; this was the case for Black Lake Ditch and the other tributaries, so the Shade.xls models were constructed using available data, such as LiDAR.

The Shade.xls model requires inputs related to height, density, and overhang for each land use type identified during the TTools riparian sampling. The ArcGIS Zonal Statistics tool was used to estimate the average height of each riparian land use class. A vegetation height raster was generated by subtracting the last-return bare earth LiDAR raster from the first-return vegetation elevation raster. Estimates for density were based on visual assessment of aerial imagery and first-return LiDAR rasters, while estimations of vegetation overhang were derived from height and overhang relationships observed in the Percival Creek, Black Lake Ditch, and Deschutes River mainstem Shade.xls models that were informed by field data (Table 5).

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

Table 5. Shade.xls model inputs for existing conditions of riparian land use/cover classes.

Land Use Height (m) Canopy Density (%) Canopy Overhang (m)

Water 0.0 100% 0.0

Pavement 0.0 100% 0.0

Building 4.5 100% 0.0

Grass 1.0 100% 0.1

Sparse Forest 10.0 50% 1.0

Medium Forest 10.0 90% 2.5

Dense Forest 20.0 90% 4.0

The hourly effective shade output from the Shade.xls model is based on topography and vegetation. Effective shade is calculated based on the geometry of the channel, vegetation height, density, and overhang, and solar position based on latitude, time of year, and time of day. The outputs from the Shade.xls model can be used to inform the existing thermal inputs to the stream and include:

• Hourly and daily average solar radiation in watts per square meter that reaches the waterbody surface; • Hourly and daily average effective shade as a percentage due to topography and vegetation. For the tributaries covered in this report, these features were evaluated at 10-meter longitudinal intervals along the stream corridor for the critical summer conditions from July 24, 2004. Ecology’s TTools and Shade.xls models for Black Lake Ditch and Percival Creek were set up at longer intervals of 100 meters (Roberts et al., 2012).

2.2.3 Shade Modeling: System Potential Vegetation

System potential vegetation (SPV) represents mature riparian ecosystem growth. When SPV is restored along a riparian corridor of a stream, shade is increased, which filters solar radiation, reduces stream temperatures, and limits nuisance phytoplankton and benthic algae. Restoration of SPV can also improve the riparian microclimate, cooling both air and stream temperatures under the canopy, and naturally restore channel characteristics over time, such as narrowing of the channel and increasing sinuosity (National Research Council, 2002). To quantify the impact of SPV restoration on heat fluxes to the tributaries impaired for temperature, DO and/or pH, the Shade.xls models generated for existing conditions were modified to represent mature riparian vegetation conditions. The mature vegetation scenario allows for the quantification of solar radiation heat load to the water surface due to both topographic and maximum SPV shade influences. Mature vegetation was represented by maximum height, overhang, and densities for vegetation that could grow naturally in the riparian corridors of the impaired tributaries. The SPV characteristics identified in the accepted temperature TMDLs for the Deschutes River, Percival Creek, and Black Lake Ditch (Wagner and Bilhimer, 2015) were applied for the tributaries covered in this report as follows:

• Non-Wetland SPV: 40 meters tall, 90 percent density, 4-meter overhang • Wetland SPV: 10 meters tall, 75 percent density, 1-meter overhang Based on Washington Department of Natural Resource soils data, the entire Deschutes River watershed is anticipated to have a SPV species of Douglas Fir, with small pockets of Red Alder. The SPV growth occurring on non-wetland soils is a simulation of Douglas Fir growth in the riparian corridor. Wetland soils are not capable of

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis achieving the same SPV growth as non-wetland areas as the soils remain highly saturated year-round and support different types of mature vegetation. It is assumed that either wetland or non-wetland SPV can be achieved in the riparian corridor unless the area is currently developed (pavement or building present) or classified as water and will result in attainment of numeric criteria. Wetland SPV is applied for wetlands identified by the National Wetland Inventory spatial dataset. The tributaries with the most extensive riparian wetland soils include Ayer Creek and Lake Lawrence Tributary. The Black Lake Ditch and Percival Creek Shade.xls models developed by Ecology differed slightly in that they allowed for areas identified as water, pavement, or buildings to be revegetated in the SPV scenario, which targeted natural conditions without human influence. The results of the Shade.xls modeling include both effective shade and associated heat load for both existing and SPV scenarios. The difference in effective shade between these scenarios represents the current shade deficit expressed as a relative percentage. Similarly, the difference in heat load between these scenarios represents the total excess heat load that the stream receives under existing shade conditions relative to SPV conditions. The average daily effective shade deficit and heat load results are summarized in Table 6 as an average along the entire stream reach. Effective shade deficits at each segment node (i.e. each 10-meter increment) are shown in Figure 3 to Figure 9. The tabular data associated with existing shade, SPV shade, and the associated shade deficit at each segment node is presented in full in Appendix F-1. An effective shade deficit of 100 percent reflects a condition where existing conditions provide no shade from vegetation and topography. An effective shade deficit of 0 percent reflects a condition where existing conditions are equivalent to SPV conditions. The reach with the largest average shade deficit (48 percent) is Lake Lawrence Creek, which is surrounded by agricultural fields and grassland, although it is not listed as impaired for temperature (based on the 2012 list) and the single available temperature observation from October 2004 was below the 7-DADMax. Lake Lawrence Creek, although not listed as impaired for temperature exhibits the most capacity for improvement. Huckleberry Creek is the reach with the lowest average shade deficit (1 percent), as it is mostly surrounded by dense riparian forest. Implementation should focus on the conservation of existing riparian vegetation for Huckleberry Creek.

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

Table 6. Longitudinal average daily effective shade deficits and solar heat loads during the critical period.

Average Effective Average Average Average Average Average Shade for Effective Effective Existing SPV Heat Heat Load Waterbody1 Existing Shade for Shade Heat Load Load Deficit Vegetation SPV (%) Deficit (%) (W/m2) (W/m2) (W/m2) (%)

Huckleberry Creek 96% 97% 1% 12 8 4 Reichel Creek 71% 94% 23% 90 18 71 Tempo Lake Outlet 79% 93% 14% 65 23 42 Unnamed Spring to 99% 99% <1% 4.8 4.0 0.8 Deschutes River Ayer Creek 34% 79% 45% 207 66 141 Lake Lawrence 46% 94% 48% 169 19 149 Creek Adams Creek (East) 90% 98% 8% 33 8 25 1Results for the Black Lake Ditch and Percival Creek Shade.xls models can be found in Ecology’s TMDLs (Wagner and Bilhimer, 2015).

Figure 3. Average daily shade deficit along Huckleberry Creek.

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

Figure 4. Average daily shade deficit along Tempo Lake Outlet.

Figure 5. Average daily shade deficit along Unnamed Spring to Deschutes River.

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

Figure 6. Average daily shade deficit along Lake Lawrence Tributary.

Figure 7. Average daily shade deficit along Reichel Creek.

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

Figure 8. Average daily shade deficit along Ayer Creek.

Figure 9. Average daily shade deficit along Adams Creek (East).

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

2.3 TMDLS: THERMAL HEAT

The TMDL is the highest amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive without violating the water quality standard (40 CFR § 130.2(f)). Removing shade deficits by establishing SPV along the riparian corridors will reduce the thermal heat loads to the streams; the resulting microclimate effects are anticipated to reduce near- stream air temperatures, ultimately reducing water temperatures. TMDLs for water temperature are expressed using a surrogate measure, daily solar heat load (averaged over the day), which corresponds with the revegetation of riparian buffers to SPV (Table 7). The solar heat TMDLs are based on the critical summer period (shade simulation on July 24), thus, are the maximum allowable daily loads. The TMDLs were converted from Shade.xls model output units of W/m2 (Table 6) to kWh/m2/day as an average of all segments. The daily TMDL in KWh/day was calculated per segment by multiplying the load from each segment by the 10 m segment length and 72 m total riparian buffer width, and then the segment loads were summed to get the TMDL along the length of the impaired waterbody. Targets for longitudinal increments at a finer resolution are presented in Appendix F-1 because the TMDLs vary along the length of the stream. The SPV effective shade values are typically greater than 95%, except for Ayer Creek due to site-specific limitations relative to type of riparian vegetation (e.g., wetland soil type) and large stream width. The solar heat TMDLs are higher where the achievable SPV results in lower effective shade, such as along Ayer Creek (i.e., due to the presence of wetlands). Lake Lawrence Creek and Adams Creek are not listed as impaired for water temperature; the riparian shade and solar heat TMDLs are established to support attainment of DO and pH criteria in these creeks as well as support water quality improvements in the Deschutes River. Targets established in the approved temperature TMDLs for Black Lake Ditch and Percival Creek are reported in Wagner and Bilhimer (2015). Table 7. Effective shade targets and daily maximum solar heat TMDLs.

Effective Effective Current Existing Daily Daily Heat Shade Shade Daily Heat Waterbody Effective Heat Load TMDL Target Deficit (kWh/m2/day) Shade (%) (kWh/m2/day) (kWh/day) (%) (%)

Huckleberry Creek 96% 97% 1% 0.288 0.192 53,861

Reichel Creek 71% 94% 23% 2.160 0.432 55,602

Tempo Lake Outlet 79% 93% 14% 1.560 0.552 10,908 Unnamed Spring to 99% 99% <1% 0.115 0.096 413 Deschutes River Ayer Creek 34% 79% 45% 4.968 1.584 175,841 Lake Lawrence 46% 94% 48% 4.056 0.456 43,354 Creek1 Adams Creek (East)1 90% 98% 8% 0.792 0.192 24,848 1Lake Lawrence Creek and Adams Creek are not listed as impaired for water temperature; however, riparian shade and heat loading targets are established to support attainment of DO and pH criteria in the creeks as well as support water quality improvements in the Deschutes River.

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

3.0 NUTRIENTS

This section discusses the basis of using temperature and nutrients as surrogates for the pH and DO impaired tributaries of the Deschutes River. It also provides the technical approach for estimating existing loads and identifying the TMDLs.

3.1 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NUTRIENTS, DO, AND PH

3.1.1 Influencing Factors for DO

Instream DO is controlled by multiple factors. Warm waterbodies may exhibit low DO levels because warmer temperatures decrease oxygen solubility (oxygen saturation) in water. Oxygen saturation is the maximum level of dissolved oxygen expected based on the temperature and salinity of the water. The best achievable DO concentration is generally limited to the oxygen saturation level, however, photosynthesis by excess algae during daylight hours can lead to DO concentrations that exceed the DO saturation concentration (supersaturation), which can also be harmful to aquatic life. At nighttime, excess algae can exacerbate low oxygen conditions and cause large diurnal DO fluctuations during respiration. The addition of oxygen-demanding substances, which may include pollutant loads of dissolved nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus species), carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD), and organic solids, may also stress oxygen conditions. Oxygen in diffuse groundwater may positively or negatively impact DO conditions in the river. Because physical characteristics like channel bed geometry affect reaeration rates, hydromodifications, such as changes in channel shape or riparian shade resulting from land use activities, for example, can negatively impact reaeration processes. Interactions with the channel bed can act as DO stressors, such as hyporheic exchange with hypoxic pore water and the sediment oxygen demand (SOD) exerted by decaying matter in the sediment. Periodic stormwater inflows may also act as DO stressors because substances in stormwater runoff delivered to the river accumulate in the water column and sediment over time. Natural processes and anthropogenic activities, such as detrital matter from vegetation on the landscape and fertilizer applied to lawns or cropland, elevate stormwater nutrient loads. As previously discussed, nutrients facilitate the production of algae and contribute to SOD, which can lead to a violation of the DO standard during dry weather conditions.

3.1.2 Influencing Factors for pH pH deviations are commonly the result of excess floating phytoplankton and attached benthic algae. As discussed above, reduced riparian vegetation limits shade and allows solar radiation to effectively penetrate the water column, enabling an increase in primary productivity, particularly if sufficient nutrients are available. During daylight hours, these autotrophs photosynthesize, producing oxygen (O2) and removing carbon dioxide (CO2) as - - well as bicarbonate ions (HCO3 ), which increases water column hydroxide (OH ) and ultimately pH (Chapra, 2014). During nighttime hours, algae respire. Carbon dioxide released through algae respiration forms carbonic acid (H2CO3), which dissociates, releases a hydrogen ion, and effectively lowers water column hydroxide and pH. Other potential pH stressor sources include rainwater condition (e.g., acid rain), site geology and lithology, low stream alkalinity (ability to resist changes in pH), inorganic carbon availability, stormwater quality, and point source effluent, where applicable.

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

3.1.3 Nutrients as a Surrogate for DO and pH

As described above, excess nutrients facilitate the growth of benthic and planktonic algae and submerged plants, which consume oxygen through respiration, lowering DO in the water column, and algal activities impact instream pH responses. Elevated nutrients also enhance decomposition of organic matter in the sediment bed and instigate chemical transformations that deplete water column DO (e.g., nitrification). In addition to this well- established relationship between nutrients and DO and pH levels, nutrients were identified by Ecology in the 2015 Deschutes TMDLs as the primary cause of the DO and pH water quality concerns in the tributaries (in conjunction with elevated thermal loading). Thus, EPA selected phosphorus and nitrogen as surrogates for DO and pH in the tributaries.

3.2 TECHNICAL APPROACH

Total phosphorus (TP) and total nitrogen (TN) targets were developed as surrogates for waterbodies impaired for DO and/or pH. Elevated water temperatures can also contribute to DO and pH excursions, thus, riparian shade and solar heat loading targets were also established for these segments as described in Section 2.0. As discussed in Section 3.1.1, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) is a potential DO stressor. However, the Technical Report (Robert et al. 2012) for the 2015 Deschutes TMDLs stated BOD is very low throughout the Deschutes River system. While BOD targets are not defined for the DO TMDLs, TN and TP are stoichiometrically related to BOD, and labile organic nitrogen and phosphorus are embedded in BOD, thus, achieving the TN and TP targets will coincide with controlling BOD loading to the receiving waterbodies. Washington has not adopted numeric nutrient criteria for freshwater streams. However, under the antidegradation policy, human activities that impact water quality are to apply reasonable methods of prevention, control, and treatment of pollutants to restore and maintain surface water quality in Washington (WAC 173-201A-300). Designated uses are to be protected under Tier I of the antidegradation policy, which applies to all surface waters and all sources of pollution, including nutrients although numeric nutrient criteria have not been issued for streams by Washington. In alignment with the antidegradation policy and to protect DO and pH conditions in the tributaries, nutrient targets are established for the TMDLs. EPA applied a reference site-based approach for developing nutrient targets and TMDLs for the tributaries impaired by pH and/or DO. In the absence of numeric criteria, using reference site data as a basis to translate the narrative criteria into a numeric target for TMDL development is a common approach, as described in EPA’s Protocol for Developing Nutrient TMDLs (EPA, 1999). EPA recommends applying the 25th percentile condition from a reference population of streams with varying levels of human influence because it is likely associated with lower levels of disturbance in the catchments (EPA, 2000a; EPA, 2000b). This approach is implemented to determine nutrient concentration targets for the TMDLs. The technical approach is reasonable for establishing DO and pH TMDLs for the following reasons:

• The scientific literature has established that elevated nutrient loads promote excessive algae, which contribute to instream DO and pH fluctuations that can violate water quality standards; • Surrogate nutrient targets have been implemented in DO and pH TMDLs in Washington (Moore and Ross, 2010; Snouwaert and Stuart, 2015); • The approach applies ambient TN and TP values recommended by EPA for establishing targets for TMDLs; • The target values applied to develop TN and TP TMDLs are based on reference streams within the ecoregion.

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

3.3 MONITORING DATA

Monitoring data from 2000 to present from EIM and Thurston County were reviewed. DO monitoring records are summarized in Table 8 for waterbodies impaired for DO addressed in this report. The lowest minimum DO record is associated with Ayer Creek (1.1 mg/L) where average DO is also quite low (3.6 mg/L) based on monitoring completed in 2003 and 2004.

Table 8. Observed DO concentration data for waterbodies impaired for DO (mg/L).

Water Quality Period of Sample Waterbody Data Source Standard Mean Min Max Record Count (mg/L)

7/9/2003 – Ayer Creek EIM 8.0 36 3.6 1.1 8.6 12/28/2004 EIM and 7/9/2003 - Black Lake Ditch 9.5 252 9.4 5.3 16.4 Thurston County 9/12/2018 Lake Lawrence 9/3/2003 – EIM 9.5 3 2.6 2.4 2.8 Creek 10/13/2004 EIM and 1/19/2000 – Percival Creek 9.5 248 10.9 8.4 14.3 Thurston County 9/13/2017 EIM and 7/1/2003 – Reichel Creek 9.5 168 9.1 4.3 13.2 Thurston County 9/10/2018

Monitoring shows pH values outside of the water quality standard (Table 9). Ayer Creek and Adams Creek have exhibited lower pH conditions (6.2 s.u.) whereas high pH excursions have been observed at Black Lake Ditch (9.5 s.u.).

Table 9. Observed pH (s.u.) for waterbodies impaired for pH.

Date Period of Water Quality Waterbody Count Mean Min Max Source Record Standard (s.u.) 7/1/2003 – Adams Creek (East) EIM 6.5 - 8.5 55 6.9 6.2 7.8 12/28/2004 7/9/2003 – Ayer Creek EIM 6.5 - 8.5 29 6.7 6.2 7.6 10/13/2004 EIM and 7/9/2003 – Black Lake Ditch Thurston 6.5 - 8.5 255 7.2 6.4 9.5 8/6/2018 County

Nutrient monitoring data for the DO and pH impaired waterbodies are summarized in Table 10 and Table 11. Maximum TN concentrations exceeded 1 mg/L at Ayer Creek, Adams Creek, Lake Lawrence Creek and Reichel Creek, and the highest TP concentrations are associated with the former two impaired waterbodies.

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

Table 10. Observed TN for waterbodies impaired for DO and/or pH (mg/L).

Waterbody Data Source1 Period of Record Count Mean Min Max Adams Creek (East) EIM 10/12/2004 – 3/29/2005 10 1.1 0.5 1.5 Ayer Creek EIM 1/14/2004 – 3/29/2005 20 0.7 0.2 1.5 Black Lake Ditch EIM 1/13/2004 – 12/28/2004 14 0.4 0.2 0.5 Lake Lawrence EIM 10/13/2004 (single day) 2 1.7 1.7 1.7 Creek Percival Creek EIM 7/1/2003 – 3/29/2005 46 0.5 0.3 0.9 Reichel Creek EIM 1/14/2004 – 12/28/2004 16 0.7 0.1 1.2 1Thurston County water quality monitoring did not include TN or all constituents necessary to compute TN.

Table 11. Observed TP for waterbodies impaired for DO and/or pH (mg/L).

Waterbody Data Source Period of Record Count Mean Min Max Adams Creek (East) EIM 10/12/2004 – 3/29/2005 8 0.08 0.03 0.23 Ayer Creek EIM 1/14/2004 – 3/29/2005 18 0.07 0.04 0.16 EIM and Thurston Black Lake Ditch 1/13/2004 – 9/12/2018 181 0.03 0.01 0.08 County Lake Lawrence EIM 10/13/2004 (single day) 1 0.05 0.05 0.05 Creek EIM and Thurston Percival Creek 1/19/2000 – 9/13/2017 240 0.03 0.01 0.09 County EIM and Thurston Reichel Creek 1/14/2004 – 9/10/2018 153 0.06 0.02 0.11 County

3.4 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

The targets established for these TMDLs correspond to ambient water quality criteria recommendations developed by EPA and aggregated by Level II and Level III ecoregions (EPA, 2000a). The upper portion of the Reichel Creek drainage area is in the Cascades Level III ecoregion; however, the outlet of Reichel Creek is in the Puget Lowlands Level III ecoregion so the recommended criteria for the Puget Lowlands Level III ecoregion were applied for establishing TN and TP targets for Reichel Creek. The drainage areas of the other pH and DO impaired tributaries are fully within the Puget Lowlands Level III ecoregion. Recommended criteria for TN and TP are included for the Puget Lowlands Level III ecoregion: 0.34 mg/L for TN and 0.0195 mg/L (19.5 µg/L) for TP. These values were used as nutrient targets for DO and pH impaired tributaries. Mean observed TN and TP concentrations for all the DO and pH impaired waterbodies addressed in this report exceed the defined target. Maximum TN concentrations observed at Adams Creek and Ayer Creek are more than four times higher than the TN target and the maximum TN concentration observed at Reichel Creek is more than three times higher than the target. Observed TP concentrations are also elevated compared to the TP target. Mean TN and TP concentrations for Black Lake Ditch are only slightly higher than the target at 0.4 mg/L and 0.02 mg/L for TN and TP.

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

Figure 10. Observed TN concentrations for waterbodies impaired for DO and/or pH and the target ambient TN concentration for the Puget Lowlands Ecoregion (Level III).

Figure 11. Observed TP concentrations for waterbodies impaired for DO and/or pH and the target ambient TP concentration for the Puget Lowlands Ecoregion (Level III).

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

3.5 TMDLS: NUTRIENTS

The nutrient TMDLs are expressed as flow-varied loads based on the TN and TP concentration targets (0.34 mg- N/L and 0.0195 mg-P/L): 푇푁 푇푀퐷퐿 = 푄 × 0.34 × 2.45 where 푇푁 푇푀퐷퐿 is the total maximum daily TN load in units of kilograms per day, 푄 is the daily streamflow in units of cubic feet per second, 0.34 is the TN concentration target in units of milligrams per liter, and 2.45 is a multiplicative factor to convert the load to units of kilograms per day.

푇푃 푇푀퐷퐿 = 푄 × 0.0195 × 2.45 where 푇푃 푇푀퐷퐿 is the total maximum daily TP load in units of kilograms per day, 푄 is the daily streamflow in units of cubic feet per second, 0.0195 is the TP concentration target in units of milligrams per liter, and 2.45 is a multiplicative factor to convert the load to units of kilograms per day.

Because the TMDLs vary with flow, two different TN and TP TMDLs were calculated for each tributary to show the variation in loads between those associated with average flow conditions and 95th percentile flow (met or exceeded 5 percent of the time) (Table 12). Where long-term flow gaging records were not available, flows are based on daily flows observed at the Deschutes River at Tumwater United States Geological Survey (USGS) gage (period of 10/1/1997 to 9/30/2018) scaled based on relative drainage area. Long-term flow gaging records were available for Black Lake Ditch (period of 2/23/1988 to 6/4/1998) and were applied directly. Black Lake Ditch is a tributary to Percival Creek and flows originating from the Black Lake Ditch drainage area were based on gage records. Flows originating from the remainder of the drainage area to Percival Creek were estimated using the Tumwater gage scaling method.

Table 12. TN and TP TMDLs for waterbodies impaired for DO and/or pH.

TN Total Maximum Daily TP Total Maximum Daily Load (kg/day) Load (kg/day) Average 95th Waterbody Daily Flow Percentile (cfs) Flow (cfs) Based on Based on 95th Based on Based on 95th Average Percentile Average Percentile Daily Flow Flow Daily Flow Flow

Adams Creek (East) 2.1 6.4 1.8 5.4 0.10 0.31 Ayer Creek 3.3 10 2.8 8.4 0.16 0.48 Black Lake Ditch 61 202 51 168 2.9 9.6 Lake Lawrence Creek 7.4 22 6.1 19 0.35 1.1 Percival Creek 75 244 62 203 3.6 12 Reichel Creek 19 56 16 47 0.89 2.7

The percent reductions required for nitrogen and phosphorus based on the maximum observed concentrations in the tributaries (from the data summarized in Table 10 and Table 11) are shown in the following figures.

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

Figure 12. Required nitrogen reductions for tributaries impaired for DO and pH (based on maximum observed concentration and target concentration).

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

Figure 13. Required phosphorus reductions for tributaries impaired for DO and pH.

4.0 SOURCE ASSESSMENT

This section describes the source assessment for point sources within the watersheds of the tributaries impaired for tributary temperature, DO, and pH. According to a query of Ecology’s Water Quality Permitting and Reporting System (PARIS) in April 2020, the USEPA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitted sources in the watersheds for the impaired tributaries include city and county MS4s as well as facilities covered under the General Permits for Industrial Stormwater and Sand and Gravel (Table 13). There are also 13 permittees under the Construction Stormwater General Permit. Although construction stormwater is a short-term source, active permits are summarized here, and included in the source assessment in recognition that there will likely be an ongoing level of construction activity in the tributary watersheds with permittees authorized to discharge under that permit. This section includes a summary of each type of permit included in the source assessment and the approach used to estimate currently loading.

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

Table 13. NPDES permitted stormwater sources.

Permittee Permit Number Permit Type Receiving Water(s)

K and M Quarry (Black Lake WAG501118 Sand and Gravel Black Lake Ditch Quarry) Pepsi Northwest Beverages LLC WAR009988 Industrial Stormwater Black Lake Ditch Pepsi Northwest Beverages LLC WAR004082 Industrial Stormwater Black Lake Ditch Devlin Designing Boat Builders CNE301457 Industrial Stormwater Black Lake Ditch Truss Components of WAR000758 Industrial Stormwater Percival Creek Washington Black Lake Ditch and City of Tumwater WAR045020 MS4 Percival Creek Adams Creek, Ayer Thurston County WAR045025 MS4 Creek, Black Lake Ditch, Percival Creek Black Lake Ditch and City of Olympia WAR045015 MS4 Percival Creek Black Lake Ditch and WSDOT WAR043000A MS4 Percival Creek Keanland Park WAR301629 Construction Stormwater Ayer Creek Black Lake Ditch and Woodbury Crossing Multi-Family WAR304598 Construction Stormwater Percival Creek Black Lake Ditch and Fieldstone WAR305028 Construction Stormwater Percival Creek Capital High School Performing Black Lake Ditch and WAR307830 Construction Stormwater Arts Center Percival Creek Olympia Orthopedic Associates Black Lake Ditch and WAR307941 Construction Stormwater Facility Percival Creek Black Lake Ditch and Ernies Trailer WAR308092 Construction Stormwater Percival Creek Olympia McDonalds Black Lake Ditch and WAR308726 Construction Stormwater Redevelopment Percival Creek The 80 West Apartments WAR304653 Construction Stormwater Percival Creek Forest Park Townhomes WAR304711 Construction Stormwater Percival Creek Tumwater Pointe Apartments WAR306799 Construction Stormwater Percival Creek SPSCC Health and Wellness WAR307331 Construction Stormwater Percival Creek Center Genesis Acres WAR308019 Construction Stormwater Percival Creek Wellington - Lennar WAR308398 Construction Stormwater Percival Creek

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

4.1 SUMMARY OF PERMIT TYPES

This section gives an overview of all the permit types in Table 13. Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) Urban areas that collect stormwater runoff and discharge it to surface waters are required to have a NPDES MS4 permit under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Incorporated cities with populations over 100,000 and unincorporated counties with populations over 250,000 are regulated under Phase I permits, and smaller jurisdictions are regulated under Phase II permits. Entities in the study area hold active Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permits, including the cities of Olympia and Tumwater, and Thurston County. A Phase I Municipal Stormwater Permit is held by WSDOT and associated land intersecting the catchments is the responsibility of WSDOT (Wagner and Bilhimer, 2015). MS4 permittees are required to use available methods of prevention, control, and treatment to prevent and manage pollution to waters of the state to meet the goals of the CWA. Sand and Gravel Stormwater Discharges Sand and gravel process, dewatering, and stormwater discharges covered by NPDES permits are subject to regulations specified in Ecology’s Sand and Gravel General Permit (effective April 1, 2018). Depending on the type of sand and gravel activity, water quality sampling may be required to be reported regularly in Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs). Monitoring constituents vary, but may include pH, turbidity, total suspended solids, oil sheen, and total dissolved solids. Water temperature is considered for sampling if the receiving waterbody is impaired for temperature. Sampling frequency requirements vary from none required, once per month, twice monthly, quarterly, or daily when runoff occurs. All facilities must have an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Industrial Stormwater Discharges Ecology’s Industrial Stormwater General Permit (as modified, effective January 2, 2015) sets requirements for eligible discharges associated with Industrial stormwater. Depending on the type of industrial activity, stormwater discharges have the potential to contain nutrients or other constituents, which can contribute to low oxygen levels or pH excursions in receiving waters. All industrial stormwater general permittees are required to monitor turbidity, pH, total copper, total zinc, and oil sheen at varying frequency, generally shown to be once per year. Industrial stormwater sites only require sampling of BOD5, nitrate+nitrite, and TP if activities include “chemical and allied products”, “air transportation”, or “food and kindred products”. Additional sampling related to nutrients may be required if the discharge waterbody is impaired for nutrients. Construction Stormwater Discharges Construction stormwater discharges covered by NPDES permits are subject to conditions in Ecology’s Construction Stormwater General Permit (as modified, effective January 1, 2016). The General Permit for Construction Stormwater specifies that permit holders are required to not contribute to violation of surface water and groundwater quality standards and sediment management standards. Facilities covered by the permit must implement all known, available, and reasonable methods of prevention, control, and treatment develop and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and apply stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs). Active construction stormwater permittees within the tributary catchments are listed in Table 13.

4.2 TEMPERATURE

The point sources in Table 13 within the watersheds with temperature TMDLs are a construction stormwater permittee for Ayer Creek and the Thurston County MS4 for Ayer and Adams creeks. The main stressor for water temperature is shade loss and elevated solar heat loading, and other sources (e.g., urban stormwater) are not expected to significantly contribute to the elevated water temperatures in the assessed segments, particularly

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis during the summer when stream temperatures are at their highest. Therefore, thermal loading from stormwater discharges are not included in the source assessment. However, thermal loading associated with the loss of riparian shade within the Thurston County MS4 was estimated. There are riparian areas along Adams Creek and Ayer Creek that are designated as MS4 regulated land for Thurston County. For Ayer Creek, the riparian area for the most upstream 200 meters of the creek is within MS4 boundaries, which is highlighted in Appendix F-1, Table F-1 (segments 0 to 200m). From 210 meters to the mouth of Ayer Creek is non-MS4 riparian land. For Adams Creek, the last 700 meters of riparian segments near the mouth are within the MS4 boundary, and they are highlighted in Appendix F-1, Table F-3 (segments 1210 to 1910m). The remaining upstream segments (0 to 1200 meters) are non-MS4 land (Table F-3). The existing and target effective shade values within each MS4 are an average based on the effective shade values in Appendix F- 1, and the existing heat load is calculated by summing the load from the segments that fall within the MS4 boundary for each tributary and then converting them from an area-based load to kilowatt-hours per day by multiplying by the segment length and riparian buffer width of 72m (Table 14).

Table 14. Existing heat load and effective shade within the MS4 boundaries.

Existing Daily Heat Load Waterbody Existing Effective Shade Effective Shade Target (kWh/day) Adams Creek 9,280 97% 97% Ayer Creek 77,546 32% 90%

4.3 NUTRIENTS

As part of the nutrient source assessment, existing nutrient loads are estimated for sources in the catchments of the tributaries impaired for pH and/or DO, which include Adams Creek, Ayer Creek, Black Lake Ditch, Lake Lawrence Creek, Percival Creek and Reichel Creek. Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) The dynamics of nutrient loading in urban streams poses a challenge for quantifying MS4 stormwater flows and loads. Factors such as unknown event mean concentrations at stormwater outfalls and uncertain stormwater flow pathways, runoff volumes, and subsurface conveyances contribute to the general uncertainty that makes quantifying urban stormwater flows and loads particularly difficult. These TMDLs use the best information available for predicted stormwater runoff from MS4 regulated areas and urban stormwater quality conditions to approximate nutrient loads for the MS4s that drain to the tributaries impaired for DO and/or, pH. The following segments have contributing catchments with MS4 jurisdictions within their boundaries (Figure 14 and Figure 15):

• Ayer Creek (5850 for pH, 5851 for DO) • Adams Creek (East; 50965 for pH) • Black Lake Ditch (50989 for pH and 47761 for DO) • Percival Creek (48085 for DO) Land within MS4 boundaries represent MS4 regulated areas. WSDOT has responsible land within the Percival Creek and Black Lake Ditch catchments (Interstate 5 corridor and U.S. 101 corridor). A linear coverage from 1 WSDOT0F was applied to approximate WSDOT responsible land. Highway ramps and crossroads within

1 NatHwySysState.shp, obtained from https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/mapsdata/geodatacatalog/default.htm.

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis interchanges were buffered by 15 feet (30 feet total width across the lane and shoulder) and the four-lane, single direction roads were buffered by 60 feet (about 175 feet total width across the eight lanes, shoulder, and median). The buffered areas were merged and cut out of the overlapping MS4s. MS4 regulated land applied in the analysis included all areas (both developed and undeveloped) within the MS4 boundaries. The percent of catchment attributed to MS4s and non-MS4 areas for the waterbodies is shown in Figure 15. Waterbodies impaired for DO, pH, and/or water temperature with catchments fully attributed to non-MS4 areas are not shown, including Lake Lawrence Creek, Reichel Creek, Huckleberry Creek, Tempo Lake Outlet and the Unnamed Spring.

Table 15. Permitted MS4s in catchments of waterbodies impaired for temperature, DO, and/or pH.

Jurisdiction Permit Type Permit Number

City of Olympia Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit WAR045015 City of Tumwater Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit WAR045020 Thurston County Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit WAR045025 WSDOT WSDOT Phase I Municipal Stormwater Permit WAR043000A

Figure 14. MS4 boundaries within catchments for waterbodies impaired for temperature, DO and/or pH.

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

Figure 15. Percent of tributary catchment attributed to MS4s and non-MS4 areas for waterbodies. Existing nutrient loads from MS4s were calculated as the product of estimated annual runoff for the area and regional Event Mean Concentrations (EMCs) for urban and undeveloped land. The Simple Method (Schueler, 1987) was applied to estimate annual runoff within MS4 boundaries. The Simple Method was originally developed as an efficient, yet reasonably accurate, method to estimate stormwater runoff and associated nutrient loads for urban lands. The Simple Method is an empirical formulation based on data from several dozen sites spanning the range of possible percent imperviousness. It has been adopted and adapted by numerous municipalities and agencies since its publication for various purposes, chiefly in relation to compliance with stormwater management criteria. The form of the equation is as follows:

푅 = 0.9 ∗ 푃 ∗ (0.05 + 0.9 퐼푎) where R is the runoff depth (inches), P is the annual precipitation depth (inches), and 퐼푎 is the impervious area fraction (0 to 1). The method does not consider variations in infiltration potential of the pervious areas. However, in practice, most developed urban soils have lost much of their infiltration potential following site disturbance and compaction. The average annual precipitation depth between 2000 – 2018 at the Olympia Airport Global Historical Climatology Network Daily (GHCND: USW00024227) was about 50.14 inches, and this value was universally applied in the computation of runoff depth, P. Runoff volume calculations were performed separately for the developed and undeveloped portions of each combination of catchment and MS4 permittee. This approach was used because different representative stormwater concentrations were applied for developed and undeveloped areas (discussed more below), and because the distribution of imperviousness varies across the watershed. The area of each land use category (e.g., forest) within each combination of catchment and responsible entity (e.g., Thurston County portion of the Adams Creek drainage area) was tabulated from the National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD 2011 at a 30-meter resolution). The land use categories were then reclassified into either “developed” or “undeveloped” categories. NLCD classes included in the “developed” umbrella category were “Developed, Open Space”, “Developed, Low Intensity”, “Developed, Medium Intensity”, and “Developed, High Intensity”. All other land use categories were considered “undeveloped”. For each developed portion of an MS4 within a catchment, the average percent impervious area was approximated using the NLCD 2011 imperviousness grid (see Table 16 -

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

Table 19). For undeveloped areas, the impervious area was assumed to equal zero, resulting in a uniform undeveloped runoff depth of 2.3 inches per year. The product of R and the contributing area yields the annual runoff volume.

Table 16. Runoff approximation summary for Adams Creek (East).

Developed Percent Developed Runoff Developed Runoff Undeveloped Runoff Jurisdiction Imperviousness Depth (in/yr) Volume (ac-ft/yr) Volume (ac-ft/yr)

Thurston 23% 11.7 18.6 1.7

Table 17. Runoff approximation summary for Ayer Creek.

Developed Percent Developed Runoff Developed Runoff Undeveloped Runoff Jurisdiction Imperviousness Depth (in/yr) Volume (ac-ft/yr) Volume (ac-ft/yr)

Thurston 16% 8.6 72.8 16.2

Table 18. Runoff approximation summary for Black Lake Ditch.

Developed Developed Runoff Developed Runoff Undeveloped Runoff Jurisdiction Percent Depth (in/yr) Volume (ac-ft/yr) Volume (ac-ft/yr) Imperviousness Olympia 47% 21.4 2,365 65.2 Tumwater 47% 21.2 816 48.1 Thurston Co. 23% 11.6 128 46.9 WSDOT 65% 28.7 121 <0.1

Table 19. Runoff approximation summary for Percival Creek.

Developed Percent Developed Runoff Developed Runoff Undeveloped Runoff Jurisdiction1 Imperviousness Depth (in/yr) Volume (ac-ft/yr) Volume (ac-ft/yr)

Olympia 47% 21.4 2,888 85.9 Tumwater 40% 18.7 3,929 163 Thurston Co. 24% 12.1 301 62.8 WSDOT 68% 29.7 283 <0.1 1Includes sources in the upstream Black Lake Ditch catchment. Stormwater monitoring data collected by NPDES Phase I MS4s in western Washington (Hobbs et al., 2015) were used to characterize representative urban EMCs. The median reported TP EMC for western Washington permittees (110 µg/L; Hobbs et al., 2015) was applied as the representative concentration for establishing MS4 TP loads for developed lands. The median concentration was applied because it is less affected by outliers and small sample sizes compared to the average concentration. Similarly, the median reported EMCs for total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) and nitrite+nitrate (863 µg/L and 245 µg/L, respectively) were summed to obtain the TN EMC for western Washington permittees (1,108 µg/L).

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

The undeveloped land EMCs were more difficult to specify, since a regional study or data source for undeveloped monitoring could not be located. The manual for the pollutant load application tool (PLOAD) (EPA, 2001), a GIS- based application used to calculate nonpoint sources of pollution, provides summaries of nutrient monitoring data for both developed and undeveloped uses. (Note undeveloped uses in the catchments are defined as all non- developed NLCD classes, such as forest, pasture, herbaceous, shrub/scrub, and wetlands). The undeveloped TP EMC, 50.8 µg/L, was approximated from the ratio of undeveloped to developed TP EMCs listed in the PLOAD manual for the nation (0.46). The ratios of undeveloped to developed TKN and nitrite+nitrate EMCs in the PLOAD manual for the nation (0.75 and 0.97, respectively) were used to approximate an undeveloped TN EMC of 885 µg/L. The representative developed and undeveloped EMCs were combined with predicted runoff volumes to compute existing average daily loads (annual load / 365.25 days per year) for the MS4s (Table 20 and Table 21).

Table 20. Approximate existing stormwater TP loads (kg/day) from MS4s.

Jurisdiction Adams Creek Ayer Creek Black Lake Ditch Percival Creek1

Olympia NA NA 0.890 1.09 Tumwater NA NA 0.311 1.49 Thurston 0.008 0.030 0.056 0.123 WSDOT NA NA 0.045 0.105 1Percival Creek loads include sources in the upstream Black Lake Ditch catchment.

Table 21. Approximate existing urban stormwater TN loads (kg/day) from MS4s.

Jurisdiction Adams Creek Ayer Creek Black Lake Ditch Percival Creek1 Olympia NA NA 9.05 11.1 Tumwater NA NA 3.20 15.2 Thurston 0.08 0.32 0.62 1.31 WSDOT NA NA 0.45 1.06 1Percival Creek loads include sources in the upstream Black Lake Ditch catchment. Sand and Gravel Stormwater Discharges The only two facilities authorized to discharge under the Sand and Gravel General Permit that are located within tributary drainages addressed in this report are both in the Black Lake Ditch drainage. Concrete Recyclers (WAG501507) discharges to groundwater and to an infiltration basin at Black Lake Quarry, which is the other permitted facility (K and M Quarry; WAG501118). Therefore, EPA does not consider Concrete Recyclers a direct discharge to Black Lake Ditch (which would require a WLA) and it is not explicitly included in the source assessment. Black Lake Quarry is permitted to discharge site stormwater and mine dewatering water to Black Lake Ditch, which is impaired for pH, DO, and temperature. The facility has a turbidity limit for its stormwater of 50 NTU and a pH range of 6.5-8.5. The facility conducts routine stormwater quality sampling including monitoring of oil and grease, turbidity, and pH (reported pH values range from 7.7 to 8 s.u.), but it does not have nutrient or temperature monitoring requirements. DMRs for this facility do not report relevant parameters. The dewatering discharge is not considered a source of nutrient loading, but the stormwater runoff could potentially be a source (A. Caroll-Perkins, personal communication, 4/10/2020). Since there is no nutrient monitoring requirement, and thus no discharge monitoring data to quantify existing nutrient loads from Black Lake Quarry, regional stormwater EMCs were also used to estimate nutrient loads associated with discharges covered under the Sand and Gravel General Permit. Therefore, representative concentrations for industrial land reported

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis for NPDES Phase I Stormwater permittees in western Washington (Hobbs et al., 2015) are applied – TN: 1,095 µg/L and TP: 171 µg/L. Runoff depth is estimated using the Simple Method (described in the MS4 section above) and it is combined with the facility footprint area provided by Ecology (L. Weiss, personal communication, 9/27/2019) to estimate runoff volume. The site footprint, which is 102 acres, is conservatively assumed to be fully impervious, thus resulting in a runoff depth of 푅 = 42.9 inches or 3.58 feet that is combined with the footprint area to estimate the runoff volume. The site area and approximated existing daily average stormwater loads for Black Lake Quarry are presented in Table 22.

Table 22. Approximate existing stormwater TN and TP loads for Black Lake Quarry.

Site Area TN Load TP Load Facility Waterbody (acres) (kg/day) (kg/day)

Black Lake Quarry (K and M Quarry; WAG501118) 102 Black Lake Ditch 1.347 0.210

Industrial Stormwater Discharges There are currently four facilities authorized to discharge under the Industrial Stormwater General Permit that are located within two tributary drainages addressed in this report. Pepsi Northwest Beverages LLC (WAR009988 and WAR004082) and Devlin Designing Boat Builders (CNE301457) are permitted to discharge industrial stormwater within the drainage area of Black Lake Ditch. CNE301457 is not included in the source assessment because it is self-certified as a no-exposure facility, meaning the stormwater has no exposure to any industrial products and they do not have industrial stormwater discharge. Truss Components of Washington, INC (WAR000758) is permitted to discharge industrial stormwater within the drainage area of Percival Creek. Based on EPA’s review of the current permits, Truss Components has a Carbonaceous Oxygen Demand limit, and the Pepsi Northwest facilities process “food and kindred products”, which requires a limit corresponding to the pH water quality standard (6.5-8.5), and benchmark values for TP and nitrate. The DMRs for the Pepsi Northwest facilities did not contain any nutrient results, so representative concentrations for industrial urban land reported for NPDES Phase I Stormwater permittees in western Washington (Hobbs et al., 2015) were used to estimate existing loads for all permitted facilities – TN: 1,095 µg/L and TP: 171 µg/L. Runoff depth is estimated using the Simple Method (described in the MS4 section above) and it is combined with the facility footprint area provided by Ecology (L. Weiss, personal communication, 9/27/2019) to estimate runoff volume. Site footprints are conservatively assumed to be fully impervious, thus, resulting in a runoff depth of 푅 = 42.9 inches or 3.58 feet that is combined with the footprint area to estimate the runoff volume. Site areas and approximated existing daily average stormwater loads for industrial facilities are listed in Table 23.

Table 23. Approximate existing stormwater TN and TP loads for industrial facilities.

Site Area TN Load TP Load Facility Waterbody (acres) (kg/day) (kg/day)

Pepsi Northwest Beverages LLC (WAR009988) 4.0 Black Lake Ditch 0.053 0.008

Pepsi Northwest Beverages LLC (WAR004082) 24.2 Black Lake Ditch 0.320 0.050

Truss Components of Washington (WAR000758) 2.0 Percival Creek 0.026 0.004

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

Construction Stormwater Discharges All active construction stormwater permittees in the catchments of the tributaries impaired for water temperature, DO and/or pH are within MS4 boundaries, excluding Keanland Park in the Ayer Creek catchment. Therefore, current loading from active construction sites is inexplicitly aggregated with MS4 existing loads (except for Keanland Park that is aggregated with nonpoint sources in the Ayer Creek catchment). Nevertheless, potential loading from construction stormwater sites was estimated to be conservative and develop a basis for WLAs that is separate from the MS4 loads and allocations. Footprints for permitted active sites are used to approximate aggregated construction stormwater nutrient loads to the tributaries impaired for DO and/or pH. Representative concentrations for industrial urban land reported for NPDES Phase I Stormwater permittees in western Washington (Hobbs et al., 2015) are applied – TN: 1,095 µg/L and TP: 171 µg/L because construction activities are temporary and related stormwater discharges are not expected to significantly elevate loading to waterbodies, as the permit conditions primarily focus on limiting discharges off-site. Runoff depth is estimated using the Simple Method (described in the MS4 section above) and it is combined with the aggregated facility footprint (disturbed acres) area provided by Ecology (L. Weiss, personal communication, 2/19/2020) to estimate runoff volume. Site footprints are conservatively assumed to be fully impervious, thus, resulting in a runoff depth of 푅 = 42.9 inches or 3.58 feet that is combined with the aggregated disturbed area to estimate the runoff volume and nutrient loads (Table 24).

Table 24. Active NPDES permitted construction stormwater permits.

Disturbed Area TN Load TP Load Waterbodies (acres) (kg/day) (kg/day) Ayer Creek 43.0 0.568 0.089

Black Lake Ditch (applicable to downstream Percival Creek) 28.5 0.376 0.059

Percival Creek (excluding sites in the upstream Black Lake 25.5 0.336 0.053 Ditch drainage area)

4.4 SOURCE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

A table that summarizes the nitrogen and phosphorus loads estimated for the DO and pH TMDLs is provided in Table 25.

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

Table 25. Nitrogen and phosphorus loads (kg/day) for estimated average daily stormwater flow (cfs).

Lake Lawrence Adams Creek Ayer Creek Black Lake Ditch Percival Creek Reichel Creek Creek Source1 Flow TN TP Flow TN TP Flow TN TP Flow TN TP Flow TN TP Flow TN TP

City of Olympia ------3.35 9.05 0.890 4.11 11.06 1.088 ------(MS4) City of Tumwater ------1.19 3.20 0.311 5.65 15.19 1.488 ------(MS4) Thurston County 0.03 0.08 0.008 0.12 0.32 0.030 0.24 0.62 0.056 0.50 1.31 0.123 ------(MS4) WSDOT ------0.17 0.45 0.045 0.39 1.06 0.105 ------(MS4) Industrial ------0.14 0.37 0.058 0.15 0.40 0.062 ------Stormwater Sand and Gravel ------0.50 1.35 0.210 0.50 1.35 0.210 ------Stormwater Construction - - - 0.21 0.57 0.089 0.14 0.38 0.059 0.27 0.71 0.111 ------Stormwater 1Point sources not relevant to the waterbody catchment are listed as “-“

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

4.5 WASTELOAD ALLOCATIONS

Table 26 shows the percent reductions required for each permitted source.

Table 26. Reductions required from existing loads to meet the WLAs.

Adams Creek Ayer Creek Black Lake Ditch Percival Creek Source1 TN TP Temperature TN TP Temperature TN TP TN TP

City of Olympia ------69% 82% 69% 82% (MS4) City of Tumwater ------69% 82% 69% 82% (MS4) Thurston 71% 83% 33% 68% 80% 85% 68% 79% 68% 80% County (MS4) WSDOT ------69% 82% 69% 82% (MS4) Industrial, Sand and Gravel, and - - - 69% 89% - 69% 89% 69% 89% Construction Stormwater 1Point sources not relevant to the waterbody catchment are listed as “-“

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

5.0 REFERENCES

Belt, G. H., O’Laughlin, J. and T. Merrill. 1992. Design of Forest Riparian Buffer Strips for the Protection of Water Quality: Analysis of Scientific Literature. Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Policy Analysis Group, Report No. 8. https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/boise/AWAE/labs/awae_flagstaff/Hot_Topics/ripthreatbib/belt_etal_report8.pdf

Chapra, S. 2014. Surface Water Quality Modeling. Waveland Press, Inc., Long Grove, IL, 2014, p. 844.

Chen, Y.D., R.F. Carsel, McCutcheon, S.C., and W.L. Nutter. 1998a. Stream temperature simulation of forested riparian areas: I. Watershed-scale model development. J. Environ. Eng. 124 (4), p. 304-315.

Chen, Y.D., R.F. Carsel, McCutcheon, S.C., and W.L. Nutter. 1998b. Stream temperature simulation of forested riparian areas: II. Model application. J. Environ. Eng. 124 (4): 316-328.

Coffin, C., Lee, S., and C. DeGasperi. 2011. Green River Temperature Total Maximum Daily Load: Water Quality Improvement Report. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication No. 11-10-046. https://ofmpub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_impaired_waters.show_tmdl_document?p_tmdl_doc_blobs_id=7 1736https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/1203008.html

Hobbs, W., B. Lubliner, N. Kale, and E. Newell. 2015. Western Washington NPDES Phase 1 Stormwater Permit: Final Data Characterization 2009-2013. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Publication No. 15-03-001.

Moore D.J., and J. Ross. 2010. Spokane River and Lake Spokane Dissolved Oxygen Total Maximum Daily Load, Water Quality Improvement Report. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication No. 07-10-073. https://ofmpub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_impaired_waters.show_tmdl_document?p_tmdl_doc_blobs_id=7 0382

National Research Council. 2002. Riparian Areas: Functions and Strategies for Management. Washington, D.C. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10./1722/10327.

Roberts, M., A. Ahmed, G. Pelletier, and D. Osterberg. 2012. Deschutes River, Capitol Lake, and Budd Inlet Temperature, Fecal Coliform Bacteria, Dissolved Oxygen, pH, and Fine Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load Technical Report: Water Quality Study Findings. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication No. 12-03-008. https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/1203008.html

Schueler, T. 1987. Controlling urban runoff: a practical manual for planning and designing urban BMPs. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Washington, DC.

Snouwaert, E., and T. Stuart. 2015. North Fork Palouse River Dissolved Oxygen and pH Total Maximum Daily Load, Water Quality Improvement Report and Implementation Plan. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication No. 15-10-029. https://ofmpub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_impaired_waters.show_tmdl_document?p_tmdl_doc_blobs_id=7 9800

Stohr, A., Cummings, T., and K. McKee. 2011. Salmon Creek Temperature Total Maximum Daily Load, Water Quality Improvement Report and Implementation Plan. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication No. 11-10-044. https://ofmpub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_impaired_waters.show_tmdl_document?p_tmdl_doc_blobs_id=7 3632

Tetra Tech. 2019a. Modeling Quality Assurance Project Plan for Water Quality Modeling for the Deschutes River, Percival Creek, and Budd Inlet Tributaries TMDLs (Washington). Contract EP-C-17-046, Task 0001; QAPP 511. Prepared for EPA Region 10, Seattle, WA by Tetra Tech, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC.

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

Tetra Tech. 2019b. Bacteria TMDL Development for Tributaries of the Deschutes River and Budd Inlet (Washington) – Technical Support Document (DRAFT). Prepared for EPA Region 10, Seattle, WA by Tetra Tech, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC.

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1991. Guidance for Water Quality-Based Decisions: The TMDL Process. EPA 440/4-91-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1999. Protocol for Developing Nutrient TMDLs, First Edition. EPA - 841-B-99-007.

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2000a. Ambient Water Quality Criteria Recommendations: Information Supporting the Development of State and Tribal Nutrient Criteria for Rivers and Streams in Nutrient Ecoregion II “Western Forested Mountains”. EPA - 822-B-00-015.

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2000b. Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual. EPA - 822-B- 00-002.

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2001. PLOAD version 3.0: An ArcView GIS Tool to Calculate Nonpoint Sources of Pollution in Watershed and Stormwater Projects User’s Manual.

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2018. Final Action on the “Deschutes River, Percival Creek, and Budd Inlet Tributaries Multi-Parameter Total Maximum Daily Load”. Letter from EPA to Washing Ecology. Seattle, Washington.

Wagner, L. and D. Bilhimer. 2015. Deschutes River, Percival Creek, and Budd Inlet Tributaries Temperature, Fecal Coliform Bacteria, Dissolved Oxygen, pH, and Fine Sediment TMDL: Water Quality Improvement Report and Implementation Plan. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication No. 15-10-012. https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/1510012.html

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

6.0 APPENDIX F-1: TABULAR SHADE DEFICIT AND THERMAL TMDL RESULTS

Existing shade deficits were calculated at 10-meter increments along the length of each waterbody, as discussed and summarized in Section 2.0, and presented in the following tables. Effective shade targets and heat TMDLs are also provided in the following tables.

Table F-1. Effective shade targets, deficits, and daily maximum solar heat TMDLs for Ayer Creek.

Longitudinal Current Effective Effective Existing Daily Excess Heat Distance Effective Shade Shade Daily Heat TMDL Heat Load Load from Shade Target Deficit (kWh/m2/day) (kWh/m2/day) (kWh/m2/day) Headwaters (%) (%) (%) (m)1 0 50% 90% 39% 3.740 0.777 2.963 10 49% 89% 40% 3.789 0.792 2.997 20 49% 89% 40% 3.809 0.840 2.969 30 45% 98% 52% 4.095 0.166 3.929 40 40% 98% 58% 4.497 0.156 4.341 50 39% 98% 59% 4.584 0.146 4.438 60 39% 99% 60% 4.590 0.102 4.487 70 38% 99% 61% 4.690 0.107 4.583 80 37% 99% 62% 4.752 0.107 4.645 90 38% 99% 60% 4.623 0.110 4.513 100 39% 99% 59% 4.544 0.110 4.434 110 34% 99% 64% 4.946 0.112 4.834 120 34% 99% 65% 4.957 0.069 4.888 130 31% 99% 68% 5.164 0.069 5.096 140 27% 99% 72% 5.505 0.068 5.438 150 22% 99% 77% 5.868 0.057 5.811 160 20% 99% 78% 5.967 0.108 5.858 170 4% 57% 53% 7.241 3.255 3.986 180 11% 60% 49% 6.675 3.027 3.648 190 9% 58% 49% 6.834 3.136 3.697 200 9% 67% 58% 6.833 2.459 4.374 210 5% 55% 50% 7.129 3.340 3.789 220 0% 12% 12% 7.484 6.620 0.863 230 2% 11% 9% 7.366 6.666 0.699 240 3% 11% 8% 7.253 6.643 0.610 250 8% 86% 78% 6.875 1.044 5.831

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

Longitudinal Current Effective Effective Existing Daily Excess Heat Distance Effective Shade Shade Daily Heat TMDL Heat Load Load from Shade Target Deficit (kWh/m2/day) (kWh/m2/day) (kWh/m2/day) Headwaters (%) (%) (%) (m)1 260 3% 66% 63% 7.251 2.535 4.716 270 1% 24% 23% 7.393 5.674 1.719 280 4% 36% 32% 7.201 4.806 2.395 290 3% 30% 26% 7.253 5.273 1.980 300 2% 19% 17% 7.340 6.064 1.276 310 2% 18% 16% 7.350 6.151 1.199 320 2% 17% 15% 7.354 6.201 1.152 330 2% 16% 14% 7.371 6.289 1.082 340 1% 15% 14% 7.399 6.378 1.021 350 1% 16% 14% 7.397 6.325 1.072 360 2% 17% 15% 7.390 6.262 1.129 370 2% 18% 16% 7.380 6.150 1.230 380 2% 21% 19% 7.360 5.910 1.450 390 2% 26% 24% 7.335 5.546 1.789 400 4% 25% 21% 7.226 5.636 1.590 410 6% 32% 25% 7.025 5.127 1.898 420 16% 55% 39% 6.276 3.365 2.912 430 28% 75% 47% 5.408 1.887 3.520 440 28% 76% 48% 5.433 1.832 3.601 450 27% 77% 50% 5.452 1.732 3.720 460 27% 77% 50% 5.458 1.727 3.731 470 26% 77% 50% 5.519 1.735 3.785 480 29% 78% 49% 5.347 1.663 3.683 490 28% 78% 49% 5.375 1.686 3.689 500 34% 88% 53% 4.922 0.918 4.003 510 40% 89% 49% 4.531 0.859 3.673 520 38% 89% 51% 4.652 0.820 3.832 530 41% 89% 48% 4.420 0.793 3.626 540 43% 90% 48% 4.301 0.716 3.585 550 40% 92% 52% 4.513 0.585 3.928 560 39% 98% 59% 4.612 0.158 4.454 570 38% 98% 60% 4.666 0.160 4.506 580 37% 98% 60% 4.696 0.159 4.537

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

Longitudinal Current Effective Effective Existing Daily Excess Heat Distance Effective Shade Shade Daily Heat TMDL Heat Load Load from Shade Target Deficit (kWh/m2/day) (kWh/m2/day) (kWh/m2/day) Headwaters (%) (%) (%) (m)1 590 36% 98% 61% 4.777 0.164 4.614 600 38% 98% 59% 4.625 0.162 4.463 610 38% 98% 60% 4.656 0.162 4.495 620 38% 98% 59% 4.624 0.170 4.454 630 41% 98% 57% 4.449 0.160 4.289 640 37% 90% 52% 4.690 0.778 3.912 650 37% 88% 51% 4.709 0.882 3.828 660 28% 77% 49% 5.422 1.715 3.707 670 27% 76% 49% 5.447 1.784 3.662 680 28% 76% 48% 5.411 1.783 3.628 690 37% 87% 50% 4.696 0.946 3.750 700 38% 87% 49% 4.649 0.938 3.710 710 36% 87% 50% 4.794 1.013 3.781 720 37% 87% 50% 4.745 1.000 3.745 730 37% 86% 49% 4.757 1.048 3.708 740 36% 84% 49% 4.805 1.164 3.641 750 38% 86% 49% 4.675 1.025 3.650 760 40% 87% 47% 4.513 1.000 3.513 770 38% 87% 48% 4.634 1.012 3.621 780 38% 87% 48% 4.620 1.009 3.612 790 40% 88% 47% 4.465 0.901 3.564 800 38% 88% 49% 4.617 0.923 3.694 810 38% 87% 50% 4.674 0.939 3.735 820 38% 87% 50% 4.683 0.943 3.741 830 37% 87% 50% 4.694 0.949 3.745 840 37% 87% 50% 4.700 0.954 3.746 850 39% 88% 49% 4.566 0.905 3.661 860 40% 89% 49% 4.466 0.813 3.653 870 40% 90% 49% 4.472 0.766 3.706 880 39% 90% 51% 4.557 0.768 3.790 890 25% 75% 51% 5.660 1.866 3.794 900 24% 75% 51% 5.716 1.852 3.864 910 23% 75% 52% 5.787 1.883 3.904

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

Longitudinal Current Effective Effective Existing Daily Excess Heat Distance Effective Shade Shade Daily Heat TMDL Heat Load Load from Shade Target Deficit (kWh/m2/day) (kWh/m2/day) (kWh/m2/day) Headwaters (%) (%) (%) (m)1 920 25% 75% 50% 5.651 1.866 3.785 930 25% 75% 50% 5.625 1.851 3.774 940 26% 75% 49% 5.546 1.861 3.686 950 26% 75% 50% 5.572 1.850 3.721 960 28% 76% 48% 5.413 1.778 3.635 970 25% 75% 50% 5.651 1.871 3.780 980 25% 75% 50% 5.622 1.870 3.752 990 27% 76% 48% 5.460 1.835 3.624 1000 30% 76% 46% 5.269 1.810 3.459 1010 29% 76% 47% 5.353 1.836 3.517 1020 28% 76% 47% 5.374 1.824 3.551 1030 30% 76% 46% 5.272 1.819 3.453 1040 31% 76% 45% 5.181 1.804 3.378 1050 28% 75% 48% 5.435 1.842 3.593 1060 27% 75% 48% 5.469 1.843 3.625 1070 35% 76% 41% 4.850 1.764 3.087 1080 31% 76% 45% 5.209 1.799 3.410 1090 27% 75% 48% 5.472 1.846 3.625 1100 26% 75% 49% 5.539 1.853 3.685 1110 24% 75% 51% 5.684 1.854 3.830 1120 22% 73% 51% 5.859 2.010 3.849 1130 19% 63% 44% 6.069 2.768 3.301 1140 24% 75% 51% 5.676 1.865 3.811 1150 26% 76% 49% 5.518 1.810 3.708 1160 28% 77% 48% 5.386 1.756 3.630 1170 32% 79% 47% 5.114 1.604 3.510 1180 38% 80% 42% 4.678 1.522 3.156 1190 35% 82% 47% 4.857 1.353 3.504 1200 30% 89% 59% 5.272 0.823 4.449 1210 23% 98% 76% 5.789 0.121 5.669 1220 23% 98% 75% 5.758 0.116 5.643 1230 26% 99% 73% 5.581 0.092 5.489 1240 21% 99% 77% 5.892 0.087 5.805

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

Longitudinal Current Effective Effective Existing Daily Excess Heat Distance Effective Shade Shade Daily Heat TMDL Heat Load Load from Shade Target Deficit (kWh/m2/day) (kWh/m2/day) (kWh/m2/day) Headwaters (%) (%) (%) (m)1 1250 26% 99% 73% 5.568 0.083 5.484 1260 27% 98% 71% 5.468 0.129 5.339 1270 23% 99% 76% 5.805 0.072 5.733 1280 29% 99% 70% 5.362 0.073 5.289 1290 28% 99% 71% 5.418 0.072 5.346 1300 28% 99% 71% 5.383 0.078 5.305 1310 25% 99% 74% 5.630 0.076 5.554 1320 22% 99% 77% 5.865 0.059 5.806 1330 24% 99% 75% 5.687 0.052 5.634 1340 25% 99% 74% 5.616 0.053 5.563 1350 30% 99% 69% 5.227 0.059 5.168 1360 37% 99% 62% 4.698 0.079 4.619 1370 36% 98% 62% 4.779 0.114 4.665 1380 68% 99% 30% 2.396 0.107 2.289 1390 99% 99% 0% 0.094 0.079 0.015 1400 99% 99% 0% 0.094 0.074 0.020 1410 99% 99% 0% 0.097 0.080 0.017 1420 99% 99% 0% 0.103 0.084 0.019 1430 99% 99% 0% 0.100 0.078 0.022 1440 99% 99% 0% 0.101 0.076 0.025 1450 99% 99% 0% 0.098 0.070 0.028 1460 99% 99% 0% 0.095 0.085 0.010 1470 99% 99% 0% 0.098 0.071 0.027 1480 99% 99% 0% 0.097 0.070 0.027 1490 99% 99% 0% 0.104 0.084 0.020 1500 99% 99% 0% 0.105 0.086 0.019 1510 99% 99% 0% 0.098 0.098 0.000 1520 98% 98% 0% 0.115 0.115 0.000 1530 17% 23% 6% 6.258 5.780 0.477 1Shaded cells from 0m to 200m are within the Thurston County MS4

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

Table F-2. Effective shade targets, deficits, and daily maximum solar heat TMDLs for Huckleberry Creek.

Longitudinal Current Effective Effective Distance Existing Daily Excess Heat Effective Shade Shade Daily Heat TMDL from Heat Load Load Shade Target Deficit (kWh/m2/day) Headwaters (kWh/m2/day) (kWh/m2/day) (%) (%) (%) (m)

0 98% 99% 1% 0.117 0.058 0.058 10 98% 99% 1% 0.117 0.058 0.058 20 99% 99% 0% 0.109 0.074 0.034 30 99% 99% 0% 0.097 0.074 0.023 40 99% 99% 0% 0.097 0.074 0.023 50 99% 99% 0% 0.097 0.074 0.023 60 99% 99% 0% 0.097 0.074 0.023 70 99% 99% 0% 0.099 0.070 0.029 80 99% 99% 0% 0.099 0.070 0.029 90 99% 99% 0% 0.099 0.070 0.029 100 99% 99% 0% 0.099 0.070 0.029 110 99% 99% 0% 0.099 0.070 0.029 120 99% 99% 0% 0.099 0.070 0.029 130 99% 99% 0% 0.099 0.070 0.029 140 99% 99% 0% 0.098 0.085 0.013 150 99% 99% 0% 0.098 0.085 0.013 160 99% 99% 0% 0.098 0.085 0.013 170 99% 99% 0% 0.098 0.085 0.013 180 99% 99% 0% 0.099 0.099 0.000 190 99% 99% 0% 0.099 0.099 0.000 200 99% 99% 0% 0.099 0.099 0.000 210 99% 99% 0% 0.099 0.099 0.000 220 99% 99% 0% 0.100 0.100 0.000 230 99% 99% 0% 0.100 0.100 0.000 240 99% 99% 0% 0.100 0.100 0.000 250 99% 99% 0% 0.100 0.100 0.000 260 99% 99% 0% 0.100 0.100 0.000 270 99% 99% 0% 0.100 0.100 0.000 280 99% 99% 0% 0.099 0.098 0.000 290 99% 99% 0% 0.098 0.081 0.017 300 99% 99% 0% 0.098 0.081 0.017 310 99% 99% 0% 0.098 0.081 0.017

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

320 99% 99% 0% 0.097 0.076 0.022 330 99% 99% 0% 0.097 0.076 0.022 340 99% 99% 0% 0.097 0.076 0.022 350 99% 99% 0% 0.097 0.076 0.022 360 99% 99% 0% 0.097 0.076 0.022 370 99% 99% 0% 0.096 0.067 0.029 380 99% 99% 0% 0.096 0.067 0.029 390 99% 99% 0% 0.097 0.074 0.023 400 99% 99% 0% 0.097 0.074 0.023 410 99% 99% 0% 0.097 0.074 0.023 420 99% 99% 0% 0.097 0.074 0.023 430 99% 99% 0% 0.097 0.074 0.023 440 99% 99% 0% 0.098 0.092 0.007 450 99% 99% 0% 0.098 0.092 0.007 460 99% 99% 0% 0.098 0.092 0.007 470 99% 99% 0% 0.098 0.092 0.007 480 99% 99% 0% 0.098 0.092 0.007 490 99% 99% 0% 0.098 0.092 0.007 500 99% 99% 0% 0.098 0.092 0.007 510 99% 99% 0% 0.098 0.092 0.007 520 99% 99% 0% 0.096 0.091 0.005 530 99% 99% 0% 0.096 0.091 0.005 540 99% 99% 0% 0.096 0.091 0.005 550 99% 99% 0% 0.096 0.091 0.005 560 99% 99% 0% 0.096 0.096 0.000 570 99% 99% 0% 0.096 0.096 0.000 580 99% 99% 0% 0.096 0.096 0.000 590 99% 99% 0% 0.096 0.096 0.000 600 99% 99% 0% 0.096 0.096 0.000 610 99% 99% 0% 0.096 0.096 0.000 620 99% 99% 0% 0.096 0.096 0.000 630 99% 99% 0% 0.095 0.093 0.002 640 99% 99% 0% 0.095 0.093 0.002

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

650 99% 99% 0% 0.095 0.093 0.002 660 99% 99% 0% 0.095 0.093 0.002 670 99% 99% 0% 0.096 0.077 0.019 680 99% 99% 0% 0.096 0.077 0.019 690 99% 99% 0% 0.096 0.077 0.019 700 99% 99% 0% 0.096 0.077 0.019 710 99% 99% 0% 0.096 0.077 0.019 720 99% 99% 0% 0.097 0.077 0.020 730 99% 99% 0% 0.097 0.077 0.020 740 98% 99% 1% 0.125 0.077 0.048 750 98% 99% 1% 0.125 0.077 0.048 760 98% 99% 1% 0.124 0.062 0.061 770 98% 99% 1% 0.124 0.062 0.061 780 98% 99% 1% 0.124 0.062 0.061 790 98% 99% 1% 0.124 0.062 0.061 800 98% 99% 1% 0.124 0.062 0.061 810 98% 99% 1% 0.124 0.062 0.061 820 96% 99% 3% 0.283 0.062 0.221 830 97% 99% 2% 0.242 0.062 0.180 840 99% 99% 0% 0.095 0.085 0.010 850 99% 99% 0% 0.106 0.094 0.013 860 99% 99% 0% 0.096 0.088 0.007 870 99% 99% 0% 0.098 0.083 0.015 880 99% 99% 0% 0.099 0.092 0.008 890 99% 99% 0% 0.100 0.084 0.015 900 99% 99% 0% 0.097 0.071 0.026 910 99% 99% 0% 0.093 0.078 0.015 920 99% 99% 0% 0.098 0.083 0.015 930 99% 99% 0% 0.104 0.093 0.011 940 99% 99% 0% 0.090 0.062 0.029 950 99% 99% 0% 0.074 0.042 0.032 960 99% 99% 0% 0.082 0.048 0.034 970 99% 99% 0% 0.077 0.043 0.034

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

980 99% 99% 0% 0.085 0.049 0.036 990 99% 99% 0% 0.088 0.058 0.031 1000 99% 99% 0% 0.089 0.065 0.025 1010 99% 99% 0% 0.067 0.041 0.025 1020 99% 99% 0% 0.063 0.040 0.023 1030 99% 99% 0% 0.073 0.043 0.030 1040 99% 99% 0% 0.073 0.043 0.030 1050 99% 99% 0% 0.074 0.043 0.031 1060 99% 99% 0% 0.083 0.055 0.028 1070 99% 99% 0% 0.078 0.060 0.019 1080 99% 99% 0% 0.081 0.051 0.030 1090 99% 99% 0% 0.081 0.048 0.033 1100 99% 99% 0% 0.082 0.048 0.033 1110 99% 99% 0% 0.099 0.073 0.025 1120 99% 99% 0% 0.096 0.065 0.030 1130 99% 99% 0% 0.088 0.056 0.032 1140 99% 99% 0% 0.086 0.053 0.033 1150 99% 99% 0% 0.083 0.051 0.032 1160 99% 99% 0% 0.094 0.067 0.027 1170 99% 99% 0% 0.096 0.071 0.026 1180 99% 99% 0% 0.096 0.070 0.026 1190 99% 99% 0% 0.097 0.070 0.026 1200 99% 99% 0% 0.083 0.053 0.030 1210 99% 99% 0% 0.085 0.054 0.031 1220 99% 99% 0% 0.088 0.060 0.028 1230 99% 99% 0% 0.090 0.071 0.019 1240 99% 99% 0% 0.089 0.064 0.025 1250 99% 99% 0% 0.080 0.055 0.024 1260 99% 99% 0% 0.085 0.066 0.019 1270 99% 99% 0% 0.082 0.068 0.015 1280 99% 99% 0% 0.081 0.070 0.011 1290 99% 99% 0% 0.085 0.064 0.021 1300 99% 99% 0% 0.085 0.056 0.029

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

1310 99% 99% 0% 0.087 0.070 0.017 1320 99% 99% 0% 0.092 0.076 0.016 1330 99% 99% 0% 0.092 0.074 0.019 1340 99% 99% 0% 0.088 0.056 0.032 1350 99% 99% 0% 0.082 0.053 0.028 1360 99% 99% 0% 0.083 0.050 0.033 1370 99% 99% 0% 0.086 0.050 0.036 1380 99% 99% 0% 0.090 0.057 0.033 1390 99% 99% 0% 0.095 0.071 0.025 1400 99% 99% 0% 0.097 0.074 0.022 1410 99% 99% 0% 0.093 0.062 0.030 1420 99% 99% 0% 0.095 0.067 0.027 1430 99% 99% 0% 0.095 0.067 0.028 1440 99% 99% 0% 0.084 0.051 0.033 1450 99% 99% 0% 0.085 0.054 0.031 1460 99% 99% 0% 0.094 0.064 0.030 1470 99% 99% 0% 0.095 0.067 0.028 1480 99% 99% 0% 0.091 0.065 0.026 1490 99% 99% 0% 0.090 0.063 0.027 1500 99% 99% 0% 0.102 0.085 0.018 1510 99% 99% 0% 0.098 0.077 0.020 1520 99% 99% 0% 0.098 0.077 0.022 1530 99% 99% 0% 0.094 0.072 0.021 1540 99% 99% 0% 0.092 0.078 0.014 1550 99% 99% 0% 0.100 0.079 0.021 1560 99% 99% 0% 0.099 0.080 0.020 1570 99% 99% 0% 0.101 0.078 0.023 1580 99% 99% 0% 0.099 0.072 0.027 1590 99% 99% 0% 0.100 0.080 0.020 1600 99% 99% 0% 0.098 0.076 0.023 1610 99% 99% 0% 0.090 0.065 0.025 1620 99% 99% 0% 0.093 0.062 0.031 1630 99% 99% 0% 0.093 0.062 0.031

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

1640 99% 99% 0% 0.084 0.051 0.033 1650 99% 99% 0% 0.075 0.043 0.032 1660 99% 99% 0% 0.082 0.066 0.017 1670 99% 99% 0% 0.087 0.076 0.011 1680 99% 99% 0% 0.094 0.066 0.028 1690 99% 99% 0% 0.101 0.076 0.025 1700 99% 99% 0% 0.091 0.058 0.033 1710 99% 99% 1% 0.099 0.057 0.042 1720 99% 99% 1% 0.085 0.043 0.042 1730 99% 99% 1% 0.089 0.044 0.045 1740 99% 99% 1% 0.088 0.043 0.044 1750 99% 99% 1% 0.090 0.044 0.046 1760 99% 99% 0% 0.099 0.065 0.034 1770 99% 99% 1% 0.096 0.058 0.038 1780 99% 99% 1% 0.096 0.057 0.038 1790 99% 99% 1% 0.092 0.047 0.045 1800 99% 99% 1% 0.084 0.044 0.040 1810 99% 99% 0% 0.086 0.051 0.035 1820 99% 99% 1% 0.091 0.052 0.039 1830 99% 99% 1% 0.086 0.042 0.043 1840 99% 99% 0% 0.100 0.081 0.019 1850 99% 99% 0% 0.103 0.088 0.015 1860 99% 99% 0% 0.098 0.073 0.025 1870 99% 99% 1% 0.094 0.049 0.045 1880 99% 99% 0% 0.098 0.073 0.025 1890 99% 99% 0% 0.093 0.069 0.023 1900 99% 99% 0% 0.094 0.070 0.023 1910 99% 99% 0% 0.095 0.074 0.022 1920 99% 99% 0% 0.097 0.080 0.017 1930 99% 99% 0% 0.102 0.092 0.010 1940 99% 99% 0% 0.097 0.085 0.012 1950 99% 99% 0% 0.107 0.106 0.001 1960 99% 99% 0% 0.104 0.096 0.008

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

1970 99% 99% 0% 0.099 0.099 0.000 1980 99% 99% 0% 0.096 0.083 0.013 1990 99% 99% 0% 0.097 0.085 0.011 2000 99% 99% 0% 0.098 0.094 0.004 2010 99% 99% 0% 0.096 0.087 0.009 2020 99% 99% 0% 0.098 0.084 0.014 2030 99% 99% 0% 0.099 0.087 0.013 2040 99% 99% 0% 0.104 0.088 0.016 2050 99% 99% 0% 0.109 0.102 0.006 2060 99% 99% 0% 0.108 0.100 0.009 2070 99% 99% 0% 0.108 0.100 0.008 2080 99% 99% 0% 0.103 0.092 0.011 2090 99% 99% 0% 0.108 0.101 0.007 2100 99% 99% 0% 0.099 0.079 0.019 2110 99% 99% 0% 0.095 0.070 0.025 2120 99% 99% 0% 0.095 0.070 0.026 2130 99% 99% 0% 0.090 0.062 0.028 2140 99% 99% 0% 0.089 0.060 0.029 2150 99% 99% 0% 0.096 0.078 0.018 2160 99% 99% 0% 0.099 0.087 0.012 2170 99% 99% 0% 0.090 0.059 0.031 2180 99% 99% 0% 0.092 0.064 0.028 2190 99% 99% 0% 0.101 0.076 0.025 2200 99% 99% 0% 0.100 0.073 0.027 2210 99% 99% 0% 0.095 0.064 0.032 2220 99% 99% 1% 0.087 0.048 0.039 2230 99% 99% 0% 0.090 0.053 0.036 2240 99% 99% 0% 0.090 0.054 0.036 2250 99% 99% 1% 0.093 0.055 0.038 2260 99% 99% 0% 0.102 0.070 0.033 2270 99% 99% 0% 0.102 0.070 0.032 2280 99% 99% 0% 0.104 0.072 0.032 2290 99% 99% 0% 0.099 0.066 0.034

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

2300 99% 99% 0% 0.100 0.066 0.034 2310 99% 99% 0% 0.098 0.064 0.035 2320 99% 99% 0% 0.102 0.072 0.031 2330 99% 99% 0% 0.100 0.068 0.032 2340 99% 99% 0% 0.098 0.065 0.033 2350 99% 99% 0% 0.098 0.065 0.033 2360 99% 99% 0% 0.106 0.089 0.017 2370 99% 99% 0% 0.105 0.091 0.014 2380 99% 99% 0% 0.106 0.090 0.015 2390 99% 99% 0% 0.103 0.083 0.020 2400 99% 99% 0% 0.098 0.088 0.010 2410 99% 99% 0% 0.100 0.084 0.016 2420 99% 99% 0% 0.104 0.094 0.010 2430 99% 99% 0% 0.098 0.087 0.011 2440 99% 99% 0% 0.100 0.089 0.011 2450 99% 99% 0% 0.099 0.092 0.007 2460 99% 99% 0% 0.100 0.092 0.008 2470 99% 99% 0% 0.100 0.090 0.010 2480 99% 99% 0% 0.100 0.099 0.001 2490 99% 99% 0% 0.098 0.080 0.018 2500 99% 99% 0% 0.099 0.082 0.017 2510 99% 99% 0% 0.102 0.088 0.014 2520 99% 99% 0% 0.105 0.094 0.012 2530 99% 99% 0% 0.110 0.110 0.000 2540 99% 99% 0% 0.110 0.110 0.000 2550 99% 99% 0% 0.109 0.103 0.006 2560 99% 99% 0% 0.109 0.107 0.002 2570 99% 99% 0% 0.110 0.110 0.000 2580 99% 99% 0% 0.110 0.110 0.000 2590 99% 99% 0% 0.109 0.109 0.000 2600 99% 99% 0% 0.108 0.108 0.000 2610 99% 99% 0% 0.107 0.104 0.004 2620 99% 99% 0% 0.110 0.110 0.000

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

2630 99% 99% 0% 0.109 0.109 0.000 2640 99% 99% 0% 0.107 0.107 0.000 2650 99% 99% 0% 0.107 0.107 0.000 2660 99% 99% 0% 0.109 0.109 0.000 2670 99% 99% 0% 0.108 0.108 0.000 2680 99% 99% 0% 0.109 0.109 0.000 2690 99% 99% 0% 0.107 0.107 0.000 2700 99% 99% 0% 0.107 0.107 0.000 2710 99% 99% 0% 0.109 0.109 0.000 2720 99% 99% 0% 0.107 0.107 0.000 2730 99% 99% 0% 0.107 0.107 0.000 2740 99% 99% 0% 0.105 0.105 0.000 2750 99% 99% 0% 0.106 0.106 0.000 2760 99% 99% 0% 0.111 0.111 0.000 2770 99% 99% 0% 0.111 0.111 0.000 2780 99% 99% 0% 0.109 0.109 0.000 2790 99% 99% 0% 0.111 0.111 0.000 2800 99% 99% 0% 0.111 0.111 0.000 2810 99% 99% 0% 0.110 0.110 0.000 2820 99% 99% 0% 0.110 0.110 0.000 2830 99% 99% 0% 0.110 0.110 0.000 2840 99% 99% 0% 0.110 0.110 0.000 2850 99% 99% 0% 0.099 0.099 0.000 2860 99% 99% 0% 0.099 0.099 0.000 2870 99% 99% 0% 0.096 0.096 0.000 2880 99% 99% 0% 0.097 0.097 0.000 2890 99% 99% 0% 0.099 0.099 0.000 2900 99% 99% 0% 0.095 0.095 0.000 2910 99% 99% 0% 0.100 0.100 0.000 2920 99% 99% 0% 0.099 0.099 0.000 2930 99% 99% 0% 0.096 0.096 0.000 2940 99% 99% 0% 0.095 0.095 0.000 2950 99% 99% 0% 0.095 0.095 0.000

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

2960 99% 99% 0% 0.100 0.100 0.000 2970 99% 99% 0% 0.103 0.103 0.000 2980 99% 99% 0% 0.098 0.098 0.000 2990 99% 99% 0% 0.099 0.099 0.000 3000 99% 99% 0% 0.102 0.102 0.000 3010 99% 99% 0% 0.101 0.101 0.000 3020 99% 99% 0% 0.101 0.101 0.000 3030 99% 99% 0% 0.100 0.100 0.000 3040 99% 99% 0% 0.099 0.099 0.000 3050 99% 99% 0% 0.097 0.097 0.000 3060 99% 99% 0% 0.100 0.100 0.000 3070 99% 99% 0% 0.104 0.104 0.000 3080 99% 99% 0% 0.105 0.105 0.000 3090 99% 99% 0% 0.102 0.102 0.000 3100 99% 99% 0% 0.104 0.104 0.000 3110 99% 99% 0% 0.106 0.106 0.000 3120 99% 99% 0% 0.105 0.105 0.000 3130 98% 98% 0% 0.120 0.120 0.000 3140 99% 99% 0% 0.099 0.099 0.000 3150 99% 99% 0% 0.097 0.097 0.000 3160 99% 99% 0% 0.094 0.094 0.000 3170 99% 99% 0% 0.090 0.089 0.001 3180 99% 99% 0% 0.089 0.089 0.000 3190 99% 99% 0% 0.093 0.093 0.000 3200 99% 99% 0% 0.098 0.086 0.012 3210 99% 99% 0% 0.103 0.080 0.022 3220 99% 99% 0% 0.103 0.079 0.023 3230 99% 99% 0% 0.098 0.073 0.025 3240 29% 29% 0% 5.326 5.309 0.016 3250 73% 74% 1% 2.003 1.941 0.062 3260 98% 98% 0% 0.120 0.120 0.000 3270 99% 99% 0% 0.108 0.108 0.000 3280 99% 99% 0% 0.096 0.066 0.029

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

3290 99% 99% 1% 0.094 0.055 0.039 3300 99% 99% 1% 0.090 0.052 0.038 3310 99% 99% 1% 0.091 0.050 0.041 3320 99% 99% 1% 0.087 0.049 0.039 3330 99% 99% 0% 0.098 0.075 0.023 3340 99% 99% 0% 0.100 0.097 0.003 3350 99% 99% 0% 0.099 0.091 0.008 3360 99% 99% 0% 0.098 0.091 0.007 3370 99% 99% 0% 0.102 0.083 0.019 3380 99% 99% 0% 0.098 0.068 0.030 3390 99% 99% 0% 0.100 0.070 0.029 3400 99% 99% 0% 0.100 0.070 0.030 3410 99% 99% 0% 0.101 0.093 0.008 3420 99% 99% 0% 0.096 0.086 0.010 3430 99% 99% 0% 0.094 0.082 0.012 3440 99% 99% 0% 0.095 0.077 0.018 3450 99% 99% 0% 0.088 0.066 0.022 3460 99% 99% 0% 0.088 0.078 0.009 3470 99% 99% 0% 0.094 0.062 0.032 3480 99% 99% 0% 0.089 0.058 0.031 3490 99% 99% 0% 0.092 0.062 0.030 3500 99% 99% 0% 0.098 0.082 0.015 3510 49% 58% 10% 3.853 3.126 0.726 3520 99% 99% 0% 0.074 0.040 0.034 3530 99% 99% 0% 0.077 0.041 0.036 3540 95% 97% 2% 0.372 0.246 0.126 3550 99% 99% 0% 0.085 0.072 0.014 3560 99% 99% 0% 0.090 0.069 0.021 3570 99% 99% 0% 0.086 0.053 0.034 3580 99% 99% 0% 0.085 0.050 0.035 3590 99% 99% 0% 0.085 0.050 0.034 3600 99% 99% 0% 0.084 0.048 0.036 3610 99% 99% 0% 0.090 0.068 0.022

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

3620 99% 99% 0% 0.090 0.066 0.024 3630 99% 99% 0% 0.093 0.071 0.022 3640 99% 99% 0% 0.091 0.066 0.025 3650 99% 99% 0% 0.092 0.066 0.027 3660 99% 99% 0% 0.094 0.069 0.024 3670 99% 99% 0% 0.096 0.069 0.027 3680 99% 99% 0% 0.089 0.058 0.030 3690 99% 99% 0% 0.080 0.053 0.028 3700 99% 99% 0% 0.081 0.053 0.028 3710 99% 99% 0% 0.069 0.041 0.029 3720 99% 99% 0% 0.068 0.040 0.028 3730 99% 99% 0% 0.077 0.044 0.033 3740 99% 99% 0% 0.076 0.043 0.033 3750 99% 99% 0% 0.085 0.062 0.024 3760 99% 99% 0% 0.082 0.049 0.033 3770 99% 99% 0% 0.089 0.059 0.030 3780 99% 99% 0% 0.085 0.050 0.035 3790 99% 99% 0% 0.083 0.047 0.036 3800 99% 99% 0% 0.081 0.046 0.035 3810 99% 99% 0% 0.073 0.042 0.030 3820 99% 99% 0% 0.080 0.052 0.028 3830 99% 99% 0% 0.079 0.057 0.023 3840 99% 99% 0% 0.079 0.055 0.024 3850 99% 99% 0% 0.076 0.051 0.025 3860 99% 99% 0% 0.078 0.047 0.031 3870 99% 99% 0% 0.075 0.049 0.026 3880 99% 99% 0% 0.086 0.066 0.020 3890 99% 99% 0% 0.090 0.068 0.022 3900 99% 99% 0% 0.091 0.061 0.030 3910 99% 99% 0% 0.082 0.050 0.032 3920 99% 99% 0% 0.074 0.044 0.031 3930 99% 99% 0% 0.079 0.060 0.020 3940 99% 99% 0% 0.080 0.054 0.026

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

3950 99% 99% 0% 0.082 0.049 0.032 3960 99% 99% 0% 0.089 0.056 0.033 3970 99% 99% 0% 0.088 0.053 0.035 3980 99% 99% 0% 0.090 0.058 0.032 3990 99% 99% 0% 0.089 0.054 0.034 4000 99% 99% 0% 0.087 0.051 0.036 4010 99% 99% 0% 0.096 0.071 0.025 4020 99% 99% 0% 0.092 0.062 0.030 4030 99% 99% 0% 0.091 0.061 0.030 4040 99% 99% 0% 0.090 0.058 0.032 4050 99% 99% 0% 0.095 0.076 0.019 4060 99% 99% 0% 0.089 0.081 0.009 4070 99% 99% 0% 0.092 0.072 0.020 4080 99% 99% 0% 0.090 0.077 0.013 4090 99% 99% 0% 0.091 0.072 0.018 4100 99% 99% 0% 0.085 0.057 0.028 4110 99% 99% 0% 0.084 0.055 0.029 4120 99% 99% 0% 0.102 0.070 0.032 4130 99% 99% 0% 0.088 0.056 0.032 4140 99% 99% 0% 0.093 0.063 0.030 4150 99% 99% 0% 0.096 0.082 0.014 4160 99% 99% 0% 0.093 0.069 0.024 4170 99% 99% 0% 0.090 0.081 0.010 4180 99% 99% 0% 0.091 0.082 0.009 4190 99% 99% 0% 0.088 0.070 0.017 4200 99% 99% 0% 0.091 0.069 0.022 4210 99% 99% 0% 0.089 0.055 0.034 4220 99% 99% 0% 0.091 0.060 0.031 4230 99% 99% 0% 0.083 0.046 0.037 4240 99% 99% 0% 0.085 0.067 0.018 4250 99% 99% 0% 0.087 0.070 0.017 4260 99% 99% 0% 0.090 0.077 0.013 4270 99% 99% 0% 0.087 0.070 0.017

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

4280 99% 99% 0% 0.088 0.057 0.031 4290 99% 99% 0% 0.089 0.061 0.029 4300 99% 99% 0% 0.099 0.076 0.023 4310 99% 99% 0% 0.101 0.081 0.020 4320 99% 99% 0% 0.086 0.051 0.035 4330 99% 99% 0% 0.082 0.052 0.029 4340 99% 99% 0% 0.079 0.050 0.029 4350 99% 99% 0% 0.087 0.073 0.014 4360 99% 99% 0% 0.090 0.070 0.020 4370 99% 99% 0% 0.098 0.098 0.000 4380 99% 99% 0% 0.085 0.066 0.018 4390 99% 99% 0% 0.085 0.068 0.017 4400 99% 99% 0% 0.083 0.063 0.020 4410 99% 99% 0% 0.086 0.059 0.026 4420 99% 99% 0% 0.097 0.084 0.013 4430 99% 99% 0% 0.099 0.084 0.016 4440 99% 99% 0% 0.101 0.085 0.015 4450 99% 99% 0% 0.100 0.083 0.017 4460 99% 99% 0% 0.106 0.096 0.010 4470 99% 99% 0% 0.100 0.083 0.017 4480 99% 99% 0% 0.098 0.080 0.018 4490 99% 99% 0% 0.100 0.082 0.017 4500 99% 99% 0% 0.101 0.086 0.015 4510 99% 99% 0% 0.107 0.101 0.006 4520 99% 99% 0% 0.103 0.097 0.006 4530 99% 99% 0% 0.103 0.100 0.003 4540 99% 99% 0% 0.103 0.100 0.003 4550 99% 99% 0% 0.103 0.100 0.003 4560 99% 99% 0% 0.103 0.097 0.006 4570 99% 99% 0% 0.103 0.097 0.006 4580 99% 99% 0% 0.098 0.081 0.018 4590 99% 99% 0% 0.096 0.079 0.017 4600 99% 99% 0% 0.090 0.079 0.011

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

4610 99% 99% 0% 0.089 0.074 0.015 4620 99% 99% 0% 0.089 0.076 0.013 4630 99% 99% 0% 0.090 0.070 0.021 4640 99% 99% 0% 0.097 0.091 0.006 4650 99% 99% 0% 0.097 0.083 0.014 4660 99% 99% 0% 0.099 0.088 0.011 4670 99% 99% 0% 0.099 0.087 0.012 4680 99% 99% 0% 0.098 0.092 0.006 4690 99% 99% 0% 0.098 0.087 0.011 4700 99% 99% 0% 0.103 0.089 0.014 4710 99% 99% 0% 0.101 0.082 0.019 4720 99% 99% 0% 0.100 0.084 0.017 4730 99% 99% 0% 0.102 0.087 0.015 4740 99% 99% 0% 0.103 0.089 0.013 4750 99% 99% 0% 0.102 0.084 0.019 4760 99% 99% 0% 0.101 0.091 0.009 4770 99% 99% 0% 0.100 0.093 0.007 4780 99% 99% 0% 0.100 0.098 0.002 4790 99% 99% 0% 0.093 0.074 0.020 4800 99% 99% 0% 0.092 0.074 0.018 4810 99% 99% 0% 0.100 0.079 0.021 4820 99% 99% 0% 0.104 0.086 0.018 4830 99% 99% 0% 0.101 0.079 0.022 4840 99% 99% 0% 0.103 0.084 0.019 4850 99% 99% 0% 0.099 0.074 0.024 4860 99% 99% 0% 0.098 0.073 0.024 4870 99% 99% 0% 0.097 0.078 0.019 4880 99% 99% 0% 0.091 0.056 0.035 4890 99% 99% 0% 0.092 0.058 0.034 4900 99% 99% 0% 0.092 0.059 0.033 4910 99% 99% 0% 0.098 0.066 0.032 4920 99% 99% 0% 0.097 0.064 0.033 4930 99% 99% 0% 0.094 0.064 0.030

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

4940 99% 99% 0% 0.097 0.064 0.033 4950 99% 99% 0% 0.094 0.061 0.033 4960 99% 99% 0% 0.078 0.058 0.020 4970 99% 99% 0% 0.080 0.058 0.022 4980 99% 99% 0% 0.081 0.055 0.026 4990 99% 99% 0% 0.082 0.055 0.027 5000 99% 99% 0% 0.081 0.047 0.034 5010 99% 99% 1% 0.082 0.043 0.039 5020 99% 99% 0% 0.080 0.046 0.034 5030 99% 99% 0% 0.079 0.047 0.032 5040 99% 99% 0% 0.079 0.043 0.036 5050 99% 99% 0% 0.079 0.043 0.036 5060 99% 99% 0% 0.089 0.053 0.036 5070 99% 99% 0% 0.089 0.056 0.033 5080 99% 99% 0% 0.089 0.060 0.029 5090 99% 99% 0% 0.089 0.060 0.029 5100 99% 99% 0% 0.088 0.057 0.031 5110 99% 99% 0% 0.084 0.051 0.032 5120 99% 99% 0% 0.083 0.050 0.033 5130 99% 99% 0% 0.083 0.050 0.033 5140 99% 99% 0% 0.087 0.057 0.030 5150 41% 46% 5% 4.402 4.052 0.350 5160 27% 38% 12% 5.494 4.630 0.864 5170 99% 99% 0% 0.111 0.111 0.000 5180 99% 99% 0% 0.073 0.073 0.000 5190 99% 99% 0% 0.073 0.068 0.005 5200 99% 99% 0% 0.073 0.047 0.026 5210 99% 99% 0% 0.074 0.047 0.026 5220 99% 99% 0% 0.075 0.050 0.026 5230 99% 99% 0% 0.077 0.042 0.035 5240 99% 99% 1% 0.099 0.055 0.044 5250 99% 99% 1% 0.098 0.057 0.041 5260 99% 99% 0% 0.097 0.061 0.036

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

5270 99% 99% 0% 0.074 0.051 0.023 5280 99% 99% 0% 0.072 0.049 0.023 5290 99% 99% 0% 0.097 0.067 0.030 5300 99% 99% 0% 0.102 0.071 0.031 5310 99% 99% 0% 0.101 0.071 0.029 5320 99% 99% 0% 0.083 0.056 0.027 5330 99% 99% 0% 0.086 0.058 0.028 5340 99% 99% 0% 0.085 0.057 0.028 5350 56% 62% 6% 3.311 2.847 0.463 5360 99% 99% 0% 0.106 0.100 0.006 5370 99% 99% 0% 0.106 0.106 0.000 5380 99% 99% 0% 0.100 0.080 0.020 5390 99% 99% 0% 0.102 0.089 0.012 5400 99% 99% 0% 0.106 0.106 0.000 5410 99% 99% 0% 0.107 0.107 0.000 5420 75% 76% 2% 1.910 1.781 0.129 5430 75% 98% 23% 1.869 0.118 1.752 5440 69% 98% 28% 2.290 0.168 2.122 5450 70% 98% 28% 2.239 0.160 2.079 5460 71% 98% 27% 2.196 0.139 2.057 5470 76% 99% 22% 1.799 0.113 1.686 5480 76% 99% 22% 1.782 0.106 1.676 5490 76% 99% 22% 1.776 0.105 1.671 5500 80% 99% 18% 1.482 0.094 1.387 5510 70% 99% 28% 2.243 0.105 2.138 5520 70% 99% 29% 2.264 0.105 2.158 5530 64% 99% 34% 2.669 0.087 2.582 5540 64% 98% 34% 2.716 0.173 2.543 5550 71% 98% 28% 2.192 0.126 2.066 5560 69% 98% 29% 2.318 0.128 2.190 5570 60% 99% 39% 2.982 0.093 2.890 5580 24% 60% 36% 5.667 2.968 2.700 5590 54% 98% 44% 3.475 0.154 3.321

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

5600 54% 98% 44% 3.468 0.132 3.336 5610 54% 99% 45% 3.443 0.069 3.374 5620 59% 99% 39% 3.049 0.090 2.959 5630 58% 99% 41% 3.145 0.075 3.070 5640 54% 99% 46% 3.475 0.056 3.420 5650 55% 99% 44% 3.344 0.055 3.288 5660 57% 99% 42% 3.216 0.052 3.164 5670 54% 99% 45% 3.455 0.055 3.400 5680 55% 99% 44% 3.376 0.052 3.324 5690 58% 99% 41% 3.154 0.069 3.085 5700 42% 83% 41% 4.336 1.295 3.041 5710 13% 51% 38% 6.528 3.686 2.842

Table F-3. Effective shade targets, deficits, and daily maximum solar heat daily TMDLs for Adams Creek.

0 99% 99% 0% 0.106 0.077 0.029 10 99% 99% 0% 0.108 0.080 0.028 20 99% 99% 0% 0.084 0.059 0.025 30 99% 99% 0% 0.083 0.058 0.025 40 99% 99% 0% 0.083 0.057 0.027 50 99% 99% 0% 0.085 0.058 0.027 60 99% 99% 0% 0.086 0.058 0.028 70 99% 99% 0% 0.086 0.057 0.029 80 98% 99% 0% 0.113 0.111 0.002 90 96% 99% 3% 0.300 0.112 0.188 100 94% 99% 5% 0.475 0.105 0.370 110 94% 99% 5% 0.485 0.110 0.375 120 94% 99% 5% 0.486 0.111 0.375

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

130 94% 99% 5% 0.481 0.111 0.371 140 94% 99% 5% 0.477 0.106 0.371 150 96% 99% 3% 0.286 0.091 0.194 160 96% 99% 3% 0.299 0.101 0.198 170 96% 99% 2% 0.263 0.086 0.177 180 96% 99% 2% 0.271 0.086 0.185 190 97% 99% 3% 0.258 0.068 0.189 200 97% 99% 2% 0.245 0.068 0.177 210 96% 99% 3% 0.288 0.097 0.190 220 99% 99% 0% 0.101 0.092 0.009 230 99% 99% 0% 0.101 0.093 0.008 240 99% 99% 0% 0.100 0.098 0.002 250 96% 99% 2% 0.275 0.103 0.172 260 96% 99% 2% 0.283 0.106 0.176 270 96% 99% 2% 0.284 0.105 0.180 280 96% 98% 3% 0.309 0.120 0.188 290 98% 98% 0% 0.114 0.114 0.000 300 99% 99% 0% 0.112 0.112 0.000 310 98% 98% 0% 0.113 0.113 0.000 320 99% 99% 0% 0.112 0.112 0.000 330 99% 99% 0% 0.111 0.088 0.022 340 97% 99% 2% 0.263 0.094 0.169 350 96% 99% 2% 0.263 0.091 0.172 360 96% 99% 2% 0.268 0.096 0.172 370 96% 99% 2% 0.264 0.105 0.159 380 96% 99% 2% 0.269 0.101 0.168 390 96% 99% 3% 0.314 0.098 0.217 400 96% 99% 3% 0.309 0.104 0.205 410 96% 99% 3% 0.303 0.096 0.207 420 99% 99% 0% 0.100 0.094 0.007 430 99% 99% 0% 0.100 0.088 0.012 440 96% 99% 2% 0.271 0.085 0.187 450 96% 99% 3% 0.297 0.095 0.203

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

460 96% 99% 3% 0.294 0.101 0.192 470 94% 99% 5% 0.459 0.103 0.357 480 94% 99% 5% 0.471 0.102 0.369 490 92% 99% 6% 0.581 0.098 0.482 500 94% 99% 5% 0.463 0.082 0.381 510 94% 99% 5% 0.466 0.082 0.384 520 94% 99% 5% 0.455 0.105 0.349 530 94% 99% 5% 0.451 0.090 0.361 540 94% 99% 5% 0.452 0.098 0.353 550 94% 99% 5% 0.465 0.082 0.382 560 94% 99% 5% 0.465 0.082 0.383 570 94% 99% 5% 0.472 0.092 0.380 580 94% 98% 5% 0.468 0.115 0.353 590 61% 71% 10% 2.917 2.151 0.766 600 44% 61% 17% 4.234 2.937 1.297 610 94% 98% 4% 0.447 0.151 0.296 620 94% 99% 5% 0.460 0.089 0.371 630 94% 99% 5% 0.463 0.101 0.361 640 94% 99% 5% 0.450 0.103 0.347 650 94% 99% 5% 0.459 0.105 0.354 660 94% 99% 5% 0.456 0.104 0.351 670 94% 98% 5% 0.461 0.122 0.340 680 94% 98% 5% 0.466 0.121 0.345 690 94% 98% 5% 0.456 0.117 0.339 700 94% 99% 5% 0.469 0.101 0.367 710 94% 99% 5% 0.484 0.098 0.386 720 61% 98% 37% 2.891 0.117 2.774 730 58% 98% 40% 3.141 0.115 3.026 740 59% 98% 39% 3.047 0.115 2.932 750 70% 99% 28% 2.230 0.096 2.133 760 70% 99% 29% 2.236 0.096 2.140 770 66% 99% 33% 2.546 0.094 2.452 780 66% 99% 33% 2.555 0.094 2.461

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

790 67% 99% 32% 2.469 0.101 2.368 800 61% 99% 37% 2.900 0.101 2.799 810 50% 77% 27% 3.757 1.722 2.035 820 66% 99% 33% 2.562 0.108 2.455 830 63% 99% 36% 2.807 0.105 2.702 840 60% 99% 38% 2.965 0.106 2.859 850 61% 99% 38% 2.956 0.103 2.853 860 61% 99% 38% 2.932 0.103 2.829 870 60% 99% 38% 2.984 0.101 2.883 880 61% 98% 37% 2.928 0.128 2.799 890 32% 99% 67% 5.073 0.051 5.022 900 30% 99% 69% 5.243 0.051 5.192 910 37% 99% 63% 4.755 0.058 4.698 920 36% 97% 61% 4.798 0.190 4.608 930 45% 97% 52% 4.121 0.191 3.930 940 55% 98% 43% 3.361 0.127 3.234 950 55% 99% 44% 3.414 0.106 3.308 960 49% 99% 50% 3.804 0.080 3.724 970 50% 99% 49% 3.747 0.081 3.666 980 24% 74% 51% 5.719 1.918 3.801 990 34% 58% 25% 4.988 3.114 1.874 1000 94% 98% 4% 0.434 0.138 0.296 1010 95% 99% 4% 0.410 0.104 0.307 1020 78% 86% 8% 1.667 1.076 0.592 1030 75% 82% 7% 1.871 1.363 0.508 1040 95% 99% 4% 0.369 0.058 0.310 1050 95% 99% 4% 0.362 0.055 0.307 1060 95% 99% 4% 0.348 0.051 0.297 1070 74% 83% 9% 1.957 1.283 0.675 1080 96% 99% 4% 0.326 0.047 0.278 1090 95% 99% 4% 0.340 0.052 0.288 1100 95% 99% 4% 0.350 0.064 0.286 1110 96% 99% 3% 0.275 0.047 0.228

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

1120 96% 99% 3% 0.269 0.043 0.226 1130 97% 99% 3% 0.260 0.042 0.218 1140 97% 100% 3% 0.250 0.034 0.216 1150 96% 99% 4% 0.324 0.047 0.277 1160 96% 99% 4% 0.311 0.046 0.265 1170 96% 100% 3% 0.289 0.037 0.252 1180 95% 99% 4% 0.339 0.038 0.301 1190 96% 100% 3% 0.282 0.036 0.247 1200 96% 99% 3% 0.292 0.048 0.243 1210 13% 39% 26% 6.548 4.596 1.952 1220 98% 98% 0% 0.147 0.147 0.000 1230 99% 99% 0% 0.082 0.067 0.015 1240 99% 99% 0% 0.088 0.074 0.014 1250 99% 99% 0% 0.090 0.071 0.018 1260 99% 99% 0% 0.089 0.063 0.026 1270 99% 99% 0% 0.092 0.064 0.028 1280 99% 99% 0% 0.099 0.085 0.014 1290 99% 99% 0% 0.088 0.071 0.017 1300 99% 99% 0% 0.090 0.074 0.017 1310 99% 99% 0% 0.089 0.072 0.017 1320 99% 99% 0% 0.088 0.055 0.033 1330 99% 99% 0% 0.087 0.054 0.033 1340 99% 99% 0% 0.086 0.056 0.030 1350 99% 99% 0% 0.086 0.055 0.030 1360 99% 99% 0% 0.090 0.058 0.032 1370 99% 99% 0% 0.100 0.067 0.033 1380 99% 99% 0% 0.105 0.084 0.021 1390 99% 99% 0% 0.090 0.069 0.022 1400 99% 99% 0% 0.103 0.070 0.033 1410 99% 99% 0% 0.096 0.064 0.032 1420 99% 99% 0% 0.092 0.061 0.031 1430 99% 99% 0% 0.090 0.052 0.037 1440 99% 99% 0% 0.089 0.052 0.037

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

1450 99% 99% 0% 0.091 0.059 0.032 1460 99% 99% 0% 0.078 0.043 0.035 1470 99% 99% 0% 0.082 0.048 0.035 1480 99% 99% 0% 0.085 0.049 0.037 1490 99% 99% 0% 0.087 0.056 0.031 1500 99% 99% 0% 0.075 0.041 0.033 1510 99% 99% 1% 0.081 0.042 0.039 1520 99% 99% 1% 0.086 0.042 0.044 1530 98% 99% 1% 0.170 0.088 0.082 1540 99% 99% 1% 0.089 0.047 0.042 1550 99% 99% 0% 0.087 0.059 0.028 1560 99% 99% 0% 0.075 0.044 0.031 1570 99% 99% 0% 0.093 0.079 0.014 1580 99% 99% 0% 0.087 0.056 0.031 1590 99% 99% 0% 0.093 0.062 0.031 1600 99% 99% 0% 0.099 0.066 0.034 1610 99% 99% 1% 0.095 0.057 0.038 1620 99% 99% 1% 0.086 0.048 0.039 1630 99% 99% 1% 0.089 0.049 0.040 1640 99% 99% 1% 0.089 0.048 0.041 1650 99% 99% 0% 0.103 0.076 0.027 1660 98% 99% 0% 0.114 0.083 0.031 1670 99% 99% 1% 0.080 0.041 0.038 1680 99% 99% 1% 0.086 0.044 0.043 1690 99% 99% 1% 0.097 0.051 0.046 1700 99% 99% 1% 0.077 0.038 0.039 1710 99% 100% 0% 0.072 0.036 0.036 1720 99% 99% 0% 0.085 0.047 0.037 1730 99% 99% 1% 0.088 0.048 0.041 1740 99% 99% 1% 0.082 0.039 0.043 1750 99% 99% 0% 0.081 0.044 0.036 1760 99% 99% 0% 0.096 0.067 0.029 1770 99% 99% 0% 0.094 0.063 0.031

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

1780 99% 99% 0% 0.086 0.057 0.028 1790 99% 99% 0% 0.101 0.084 0.017 1800 99% 99% 1% 0.097 0.052 0.044 1810 99% 99% 1% 0.080 0.042 0.038 1820 99% 100% 1% 0.079 0.037 0.042 1830 99% 99% 1% 0.088 0.044 0.044 1840 99% 100% 0% 0.068 0.033 0.035 1850 99% 100% 1% 0.071 0.033 0.038 1860 99% 99% 1% 0.089 0.047 0.042 1870 99% 99% 0% 0.086 0.049 0.037 1880 99% 99% 1% 0.095 0.052 0.044 1890 99% 99% 1% 0.087 0.043 0.044 1900 99% 99% 1% 0.092 0.051 0.042 1910 99% 99% 0% 0.094 0.061 0.033 1Shaded cells from 1210m to 1910m are within the Thurston County MS4

Table F-4. Effective shade targets, deficits, and daily maximum solar heat TMDLs for Tempo Lake Outlet.

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

Longitudinal Current Effective Effective Existing Daily Excess Heat Distance Effective Shade Shade Daily Heat TMDL Heat Load Load from Shade Target Deficit (kWh/m2/day) (kWh/m2/day) (kWh/m2/day) Headwaters (%) (%) (%) (m) 110 99% 99% 0% 0.091 0.071 0.020 120 99% 99% 0% 0.102 0.082 0.019 130 99% 99% 0% 0.110 0.099 0.011 140 98% 98% 0% 0.118 0.118 0.000 150 74% 98% 25% 1.963 0.113 1.849 160 56% 99% 43% 3.325 0.083 3.242 170 36% 81% 45% 4.818 1.430 3.388 180 73% 73% 0% 2.003 2.003 0.000 190 98% 98% 0% 0.122 0.122 0.000 200 99% 99% 0% 0.077 0.047 0.030 210 99% 99% 0% 0.080 0.049 0.031 220 99% 99% 0% 0.095 0.059 0.036 230 99% 99% 0% 0.103 0.074 0.028 240 99% 99% 0% 0.105 0.092 0.013 250 99% 99% 0% 0.093 0.072 0.021 260 99% 99% 0% 0.109 0.109 0.000 270 6% 8% 2% 7.076 6.927 0.150

Table F-5. Effective shade targets, deficits, and daily maximum solar heat TMDLs for Unnamed Spring to Deschutes River.

0 98% 98% <1% 0.126 0.122 0.004 10 98% 99% <1% 0.124 0.101 0.023 20 99% 99% <1% 0.100 0.086 0.014 30 99% 99% <1% 0.098 0.085 0.013 40 98% 99% <1% 0.122 0.066 0.056 50 99% 99% <1% 0.098 0.085 0.013

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

Table F-6. Effective shade targets, deficits, and daily maximum solar heat TMDLs for Reichel Creek.

Longitudinal Current Effective Effective Existing Daily Excess Heat Distance Effective Shade Shade Daily Heat TMDL Heat Load Load from Shade Target Deficit (kWh/m2/day) (kWh/m2/day) (kWh/m2/day) Headwaters (%) (%) (%) (m) 0 55% 99% 44% 3.384 0.064 3.321 10 61% 99% 38% 2.937 0.080 2.857 20 57% 99% 42% 3.245 0.075 3.170 30 58% 99% 41% 3.185 0.080 3.105 40 56% 99% 44% 3.335 0.051 3.284 50 53% 99% 46% 3.520 0.073 3.447 60 53% 99% 46% 3.516 0.077 3.439 70 51% 99% 48% 3.673 0.062 3.611 80 52% 99% 47% 3.567 0.060 3.506 90 52% 99% 47% 3.628 0.066 3.562 100 52% 99% 47% 3.602 0.065 3.537 110 54% 99% 45% 3.455 0.087 3.368 120 52% 99% 47% 3.615 0.076 3.539 130 51% 99% 48% 3.688 0.074 3.614 140 51% 99% 48% 3.664 0.076 3.588 150 53% 99% 46% 3.549 0.067 3.482 160 49% 99% 50% 3.840 0.078 3.762 170 55% 99% 44% 3.384 0.084 3.300 180 52% 99% 47% 3.609 0.079 3.530 190 52% 99% 47% 3.628 0.072 3.557 200 60% 99% 39% 3.013 0.070 2.943 210 60% 99% 39% 3.013 0.075 2.937 220 61% 99% 38% 2.900 0.072 2.828 230 60% 99% 39% 2.965 0.074 2.890 240 58% 99% 41% 3.124 0.059 3.065 250 58% 99% 41% 3.145 0.049 3.096 260 49% 99% 50% 3.797 0.043 3.754 270 48% 99% 52% 3.935 0.040 3.895 280 53% 99% 46% 3.513 0.059 3.455 290 58% 99% 41% 3.144 0.084 3.060 300 54% 99% 45% 3.469 0.085 3.384 310 55% 99% 44% 3.389 0.098 3.291

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

Longitudinal Current Effective Effective Existing Daily Excess Heat Distance Effective Shade Shade Daily Heat TMDL Heat Load Load from Shade Target Deficit (kWh/m2/day) (kWh/m2/day) (kWh/m2/day) Headwaters (%) (%) (%) (m) 320 56% 99% 42% 3.281 0.095 3.186 330 55% 99% 44% 3.376 0.069 3.307 340 43% 99% 56% 4.282 0.049 4.233 350 48% 99% 51% 3.879 0.047 3.832 360 57% 98% 41% 3.223 0.122 3.101 370 68% 99% 30% 2.384 0.097 2.286 380 62% 99% 37% 2.853 0.080 2.773 390 56% 99% 43% 3.295 0.039 3.256 400 46% 99% 54% 4.088 0.040 4.048 410 39% 100% 60% 4.552 0.035 4.517 420 47% 99% 52% 3.968 0.044 3.924 430 58% 98% 40% 3.125 0.157 2.969 440 0% 0% 0% 7.496 7.496 0.000 450 79% 99% 20% 1.575 0.076 1.500 460 87% 99% 12% 1.005 0.112 0.893 470 88% 99% 11% 0.931 0.078 0.852 480 89% 99% 10% 0.812 0.059 0.754 490 81% 99% 19% 1.446 0.057 1.388 500 71% 99% 28% 2.200 0.079 2.122 510 73% 99% 26% 1.994 0.068 1.926 520 75% 99% 24% 1.869 0.056 1.814 530 83% 99% 16% 1.292 0.066 1.226 540 85% 99% 14% 1.125 0.054 1.071 550 83% 99% 16% 1.308 0.072 1.237 560 78% 99% 21% 1.659 0.090 1.570 570 77% 99% 22% 1.721 0.105 1.616 580 84% 99% 15% 1.190 0.055 1.136 590 85% 99% 15% 1.159 0.050 1.109 600 84% 99% 15% 1.206 0.048 1.158 610 83% 99% 16% 1.255 0.055 1.199 620 85% 99% 14% 1.131 0.073 1.057 630 82% 99% 17% 1.328 0.072 1.256 640 61% 99% 38% 2.949 0.084 2.865

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

Longitudinal Current Effective Effective Existing Daily Excess Heat Distance Effective Shade Shade Daily Heat TMDL Heat Load Load from Shade Target Deficit (kWh/m2/day) (kWh/m2/day) (kWh/m2/day) Headwaters (%) (%) (%) (m) 650 59% 99% 40% 3.083 0.071 3.011 660 61% 99% 38% 2.953 0.070 2.883 670 58% 99% 41% 3.181 0.074 3.107 680 56% 99% 43% 3.316 0.075 3.241 690 83% 99% 16% 1.270 0.077 1.192 700 81% 99% 18% 1.408 0.071 1.337 710 83% 99% 17% 1.312 0.066 1.246 720 81% 99% 18% 1.399 0.070 1.329 730 83% 99% 17% 1.305 0.065 1.240 740 79% 99% 20% 1.562 0.090 1.473 750 79% 99% 20% 1.574 0.102 1.472 760 81% 99% 18% 1.418 0.076 1.342 770 77% 99% 22% 1.716 0.097 1.619 780 77% 98% 22% 1.762 0.115 1.647 790 79% 99% 19% 1.541 0.086 1.455 800 82% 99% 17% 1.351 0.102 1.250 810 63% 98% 36% 2.812 0.145 2.667 820 56% 98% 42% 3.278 0.126 3.152 830 1% 1% 0% 7.420 7.420 0.000 840 74% 98% 24% 1.941 0.160 1.781 850 40% 99% 60% 4.525 0.039 4.486 860 10% 87% 77% 6.729 0.982 5.747 870 8% 50% 41% 6.889 3.784 3.105 880 12% 50% 37% 6.571 3.774 2.797 890 15% 54% 39% 6.395 3.456 2.939 900 26% 74% 48% 5.563 1.924 3.638 910 26% 74% 48% 5.557 1.954 3.603 920 26% 73% 47% 5.562 2.045 3.517 930 24% 72% 47% 5.673 2.136 3.537 940 25% 71% 47% 5.663 2.151 3.512 950 24% 70% 46% 5.729 2.271 3.459 960 23% 69% 46% 5.743 2.313 3.430 970 26% 74% 48% 5.537 1.932 3.605

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

Longitudinal Current Effective Effective Existing Daily Excess Heat Distance Effective Shade Shade Daily Heat TMDL Heat Load Load from Shade Target Deficit (kWh/m2/day) (kWh/m2/day) (kWh/m2/day) Headwaters (%) (%) (%) (m) 980 14% 56% 42% 6.466 3.316 3.149 990 1% 10% 9% 7.423 6.756 0.667 1000 87% 99% 12% 0.958 0.045 0.913 1010 72% 98% 25% 2.097 0.184 1.913 1020 81% 99% 18% 1.424 0.106 1.318 1030 75% 99% 24% 1.853 0.087 1.766 1040 75% 98% 23% 1.884 0.134 1.750 1050 98% 99% 1% 0.120 0.069 0.051 1060 85% 96% 12% 1.158 0.270 0.888 1070 98% 99% 0% 0.127 0.100 0.027 1080 98% 99% 1% 0.127 0.082 0.045 1090 98% 99% 1% 0.161 0.090 0.071 1100 77% 99% 22% 1.701 0.067 1.635 1110 79% 99% 20% 1.549 0.055 1.494 1120 78% 99% 22% 1.682 0.063 1.619 1130 77% 99% 22% 1.698 0.052 1.646 1140 77% 99% 22% 1.753 0.077 1.677 1150 69% 99% 30% 2.315 0.074 2.241 1160 47% 100% 52% 3.949 0.027 3.921 1170 80% 99% 19% 1.496 0.084 1.412 1180 77% 99% 22% 1.724 0.081 1.643 1190 75% 99% 24% 1.873 0.068 1.805 1200 78% 99% 21% 1.675 0.074 1.601 1210 78% 99% 21% 1.623 0.082 1.541 1220 81% 99% 18% 1.444 0.074 1.370 1230 76% 99% 23% 1.780 0.083 1.698 1240 77% 99% 23% 1.755 0.061 1.694 1250 78% 99% 21% 1.651 0.058 1.593 1260 76% 99% 22% 1.773 0.092 1.681 1270 80% 99% 19% 1.486 0.064 1.422 1280 81% 99% 18% 1.411 0.048 1.363 1290 73% 99% 26% 2.003 0.074 1.928 1300 78% 99% 21% 1.668 0.085 1.583

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

Longitudinal Current Effective Effective Existing Daily Excess Heat Distance Effective Shade Shade Daily Heat TMDL Heat Load Load from Shade Target Deficit (kWh/m2/day) (kWh/m2/day) (kWh/m2/day) Headwaters (%) (%) (%) (m) 1310 63% 99% 36% 2.744 0.055 2.689 1320 54% 99% 45% 3.452 0.057 3.395 1330 53% 99% 46% 3.492 0.056 3.436 1340 50% 99% 49% 3.720 0.046 3.674 1350 44% 99% 55% 4.170 0.044 4.126 1360 54% 99% 46% 3.483 0.040 3.443 1370 49% 100% 51% 3.860 0.037 3.823 1380 42% 100% 57% 4.338 0.028 4.310 1390 72% 99% 27% 2.105 0.061 2.044 1400 98% 99% 0% 0.122 0.086 0.036 1410 98% 99% 0% 0.121 0.085 0.036 1420 98% 99% 1% 0.118 0.057 0.060 1430 98% 99% 0% 0.127 0.090 0.037 1440 98% 99% 1% 0.125 0.076 0.049 1450 98% 99% 1% 0.124 0.072 0.052 1460 99% 99% 1% 0.112 0.041 0.071 1470 98% 99% 1% 0.114 0.041 0.073 1480 98% 99% 1% 0.121 0.044 0.077 1490 98% 99% 1% 0.119 0.040 0.080 1500 98% 99% 1% 0.114 0.039 0.075 1510 99% 100% 1% 0.112 0.036 0.076 1520 99% 99% 1% 0.111 0.038 0.073 1530 98% 99% 1% 0.125 0.045 0.080 1540 98% 99% 1% 0.119 0.045 0.074 1550 98% 99% 1% 0.127 0.047 0.080 1560 98% 99% 1% 0.123 0.049 0.073 1570 98% 99% 1% 0.118 0.050 0.068 1580 99% 99% 1% 0.090 0.046 0.043 1590 99% 99% 1% 0.087 0.040 0.047 1600 99% 99% 1% 0.093 0.041 0.052 1610 99% 99% 0% 0.063 0.041 0.023 1620 99% 99% 0% 0.060 0.041 0.019 1630 99% 99% 0% 0.061 0.042 0.019

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

Longitudinal Current Effective Effective Existing Daily Excess Heat Distance Effective Shade Shade Daily Heat TMDL Heat Load Load from Shade Target Deficit (kWh/m2/day) (kWh/m2/day) (kWh/m2/day) Headwaters (%) (%) (%) (m) 1640 99% 99% 0% 0.061 0.061 0.000 1650 99% 99% 0% 0.062 0.062 0.000 1660 99% 99% 0% 0.059 0.050 0.009 1670 99% 100% 0% 0.050 0.032 0.018 1680 99% 100% 0% 0.051 0.032 0.019 1690 99% 99% 0% 0.059 0.046 0.013 1700 99% 100% 0% 0.053 0.031 0.022 1710 99% 100% 0% 0.057 0.034 0.024 1720 99% 100% 0% 0.053 0.029 0.024 1730 99% 100% 0% 0.050 0.028 0.021 1740 99% 99% 0% 0.056 0.039 0.016 1750 99% 99% 0% 0.060 0.053 0.007 1760 99% 99% 0% 0.059 0.049 0.009 1770 99% 99% 0% 0.062 0.062 0.000 1780 99% 99% 0% 0.064 0.064 0.000 1790 99% 99% 0% 0.064 0.064 0.000 1800 99% 99% 0% 0.064 0.064 0.000 1810 99% 99% 0% 0.062 0.062 0.000 1820 99% 99% 0% 0.062 0.062 0.000 1830 99% 99% 0% 0.063 0.063 0.000 1840 99% 99% 0% 0.061 0.061 0.000 1850 99% 99% 0% 0.062 0.062 0.000 1860 99% 99% 0% 0.061 0.061 0.000 1870 99% 99% 0% 0.069 0.069 0.000 1880 99% 99% 0% 0.069 0.069 0.000 1890 99% 99% 0% 0.065 0.065 0.000 1900 99% 99% 0% 0.068 0.068 0.000 1910 99% 99% 0% 0.065 0.065 0.000 1920 99% 99% 0% 0.069 0.069 0.000 1930 15% 21% 6% 6.401 5.943 0.458 1940 27% 28% 1% 5.489 5.419 0.070

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

Table F-7. Effective shade targets, deficits, and daily maximum solar heat TMDLs for Lake Lawrence Creek.

0 49% 87% 38% 3.864 1.002 2.862 10 66% 90% 25% 2.588 0.748 1.841 20 99% 99% 0% 0.090 0.074 0.016 30 99% 99% 0% 0.080 0.046 0.033 40 99% 99% 0% 0.077 0.048 0.029 50 99% 99% 0% 0.078 0.059 0.019 60 99% 99% 0% 0.086 0.055 0.030 70 99% 99% 0% 0.088 0.058 0.031 80 99% 99% 0% 0.085 0.053 0.033 90 99% 99% 0% 0.084 0.048 0.036 100 99% 99% 0% 0.075 0.053 0.023 110 28% 42% 14% 5.368 4.332 1.036 120 99% 99% 0% 0.074 0.074 0.000 130 99% 99% 0% 0.067 0.054 0.013 140 99% 99% 0% 0.067 0.048 0.019 150 99% 99% 0% 0.073 0.043 0.031 160 99% 99% 0% 0.075 0.043 0.032 170 99% 99% 0% 0.078 0.045 0.032 180 99% 99% 0% 0.074 0.046 0.029 190 99% 99% 0% 0.055 0.038 0.017 200 99% 99% 0% 0.057 0.039 0.017 210 99% 99% 0% 0.058 0.040 0.017 220 99% 99% 0% 0.057 0.038 0.019 230 99% 100% 0% 0.056 0.032 0.024 240 99% 99% 0% 0.069 0.044 0.025 250 99% 99% 0% 0.066 0.040 0.025 260 99% 99% 0% 0.067 0.041 0.026 270 64% 92% 28% 2.712 0.623 2.089 280 35% 88% 54% 4.888 0.869 4.019 290 35% 88% 53% 4.872 0.932 3.940 300 32% 90% 58% 5.086 0.736 4.349 310 36% 91% 55% 4.784 0.644 4.139

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

320 34% 90% 57% 4.987 0.723 4.264 330 28% 89% 61% 5.430 0.838 4.592 340 30% 89% 59% 5.251 0.832 4.419 350 30% 89% 59% 5.264 0.824 4.440 360 32% 89% 57% 5.138 0.836 4.302 370 31% 90% 59% 5.175 0.759 4.415 380 34% 90% 57% 4.962 0.713 4.249 390 33% 91% 59% 5.060 0.660 4.400 400 32% 91% 60% 5.137 0.672 4.465 410 31% 91% 59% 5.150 0.695 4.455 420 34% 98% 64% 4.942 0.159 4.783 430 32% 98% 66% 5.085 0.135 4.949 440 37% 98% 62% 4.744 0.125 4.619 450 40% 99% 59% 4.510 0.084 4.426 460 36% 99% 62% 4.766 0.088 4.678 470 33% 99% 66% 5.051 0.092 4.959 480 35% 99% 65% 4.905 0.058 4.847 490 29% 99% 69% 5.292 0.100 5.192 500 33% 99% 66% 5.012 0.063 4.949 510 29% 99% 70% 5.299 0.063 5.235 520 35% 99% 64% 4.882 0.057 4.825 530 34% 99% 65% 4.944 0.039 4.905 540 36% 99% 63% 4.795 0.038 4.757 550 26% 99% 73% 5.583 0.098 5.485 560 27% 91% 64% 5.465 0.699 4.766 570 26% 88% 62% 5.556 0.911 4.645 580 23% 87% 63% 5.759 1.009 4.750 590 25% 87% 63% 5.663 0.950 4.713 600 24% 87% 63% 5.705 0.991 4.714 610 26% 87% 61% 5.525 0.966 4.559 620 27% 87% 60% 5.447 0.957 4.490 630 23% 87% 64% 5.759 0.984 4.775 640 26% 87% 61% 5.550 0.975 4.576

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

650 27% 87% 61% 5.512 0.938 4.574 660 27% 88% 60% 5.456 0.925 4.530 670 27% 88% 60% 5.462 0.933 4.529 680 26% 87% 61% 5.517 0.961 4.556 690 23% 86% 63% 5.774 1.015 4.759 700 26% 87% 61% 5.587 0.984 4.602 710 24% 87% 63% 5.685 0.955 4.730 720 26% 88% 62% 5.560 0.910 4.650 730 26% 88% 62% 5.536 0.906 4.630 740 27% 89% 61% 5.444 0.850 4.595 750 27% 88% 61% 5.491 0.928 4.563 760 26% 88% 62% 5.583 0.929 4.654 770 28% 88% 60% 5.401 0.913 4.488 780 27% 88% 61% 5.447 0.875 4.572 790 27% 88% 61% 5.491 0.901 4.590 800 26% 88% 63% 5.582 0.884 4.698 810 26% 88% 61% 5.518 0.928 4.590 820 27% 88% 62% 5.494 0.867 4.627 830 29% 89% 60% 5.325 0.860 4.465 840 29% 89% 59% 5.303 0.851 4.453 850 29% 89% 59% 5.299 0.846 4.453 860 29% 89% 60% 5.341 0.829 4.512 870 27% 89% 62% 5.481 0.848 4.632 880 31% 89% 58% 5.163 0.790 4.373 890 27% 89% 62% 5.501 0.837 4.665 900 29% 89% 61% 5.340 0.796 4.544 910 32% 91% 58% 5.089 0.713 4.377 920 31% 97% 66% 5.197 0.217 4.980 930 31% 100% 69% 5.179 0.036 5.143 940 32% 100% 68% 5.115 0.036 5.079 950 32% 99% 67% 5.066 0.041 5.025 960 39% 99% 61% 4.611 0.043 4.569 970 27% 99% 72% 5.447 0.044 5.403

Appendix F - Deschutes River Tributaries TMDLs Technical Analysis

980 34% 99% 65% 4.957 0.045 4.912 990 29% 99% 70% 5.333 0.043 5.290 1000 37% 99% 63% 4.754 0.052 4.702 1010 40% 99% 59% 4.498 0.055 4.442 1020 39% 99% 61% 4.605 0.053 4.551 1030 42% 99% 57% 4.331 0.056 4.276 1040 45% 99% 55% 4.151 0.056 4.095 1050 44% 99% 55% 4.199 0.053 4.146 1060 30% 100% 69% 5.238 0.037 5.201 1070 34% 99% 65% 4.916 0.047 4.869 1080 43% 99% 56% 4.249 0.047 4.202 1090 40% 99% 60% 4.518 0.045 4.473 1100 58% 99% 42% 3.165 0.047 3.119 1110 42% 99% 57% 4.345 0.044 4.302 1120 53% 99% 46% 3.526 0.044 3.481 1130 52% 99% 47% 3.587 0.044 3.543 1140 49% 99% 51% 3.839 0.046 3.793 1150 39% 100% 61% 4.589 0.034 4.555 1160 39% 100% 60% 4.563 0.033 4.529 1170 39% 100% 61% 4.605 0.034 4.571 1180 50% 99% 49% 3.751 0.040 3.711 1190 44% 99% 55% 4.196 0.041 4.154 1200 38% 99% 62% 4.668 0.050 4.618 1210 40% 99% 59% 4.483 0.040 4.442 1220 39% 99% 60% 4.559 0.040 4.519 1230 39% 100% 61% 4.594 0.037 4.556 1240 53% 99% 46% 3.500 0.057 3.443 1250 61% 99% 39% 2.944 0.047 2.897 1260 47% 99% 52% 3.947 0.069 3.878 1270 46% 98% 52% 4.059 0.135 3.924 1280 1% 18% 18% 7.442 6.118 1.324